U.S. Department of Education 

Implementation Study of Smaller 

Learning Communities 

Final Report 

Appendixes 

 

Implementation Study of Smaller 

Learning Communities 

Final Report—Appendixes 

By

Lawrence Bernstein 

Mary Ann Millsap 

Jennifer Schimmenti 

Lindsay Page 

Abt Associates, Inc. 

Cambridge, Mass. 

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

2008 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-00-CO-0085 by Abt 

Associates Inc. James Maxwell served as the contracting officer's representative. The views expressed herein do not 

necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. 

Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended 

or should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

May 2008 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Implementation Study of Smaller 

Learning Communities, Final Report—Appendixes. Washington, D.C., 2008. 

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818. 
 iii

Contents 

List of Exhibits....................................................................................... v

Appendix A: List of SLC Cohort 1 Grantees.................................................. A-1

Appendix B: Annual Performance Report..................................................... B-1

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003........................... C-1

Appendix D: Site Visit Reports................................................................... D-1

Appendix E: SLC Schools’ Demographic Characteristics, 1996–97 Through 

 2001–02............................................................................... E-1

Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure........................................ F-1

Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary........................... G-1

Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews.................................. H-1

Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes................... I-1
 iv
 v

Exhibits 

Exhibit E.1 SLC Schools’ Demographic Characteristics, 1996–97 Through 2002–03......... E-3 

 

Exhibit F.1 Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Students’ 

 Academic Outcomes by SLC Structure. .............................................. F-3 

Exhibit F.2 Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Students’ 

 Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes by SLC Structure............................ F-4 

Exhibit F.3 Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Teacher and Parent 

 Outcomes by SLC Structure............................................................. F-5 

Exhibit F.4 Percentages of SLC Schools Reporting Using Federal SLC Programs to 

 Support New SLC Structures, by SLC Type........................................... F-6 

Exhibit F.5 Percentages of SLC Schools Reporting Various Rates of Progress Toward Full 

 Implementation, by SLC Type.......................................................... F-7 

Exhibit F.6 Percentage of SLC Schools Reporting Various Levels of Physical 

 Separateness for SLC Program, by SLC Type........................................ F-8 

Exhibit F.7 Average Percentage of Time That Students Spend in Separate Physical SLC 

 Space, Among Structures That Have Separate Physical Space, by SLC 

 Structure.................................................................................. F-9

 

Exhibit G.1 Correlation Matrix of Personalization Variables, Organized Into Substantive 

 Groupings..................................................................................... G-4 

Exhibit G.2 Results of Analysis Clustering Personalization Variables Into Three Distinctive 

 Substantive Groupings.................................................................. G-5 

Exhibit G.3 Results of Principal Components Analysis Creating Optimal Weights for 

 Variables Within Each of the Three Personalization Clusters..................... G-6 

Exhibit G.4 Descriptive Statistics for Personalization Composite Variables............................ G-6 

 

Exhibit I.1 Estimates of Fixed Effects From School-Level Growth Models Examining 

 Change in Various Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Between the 

 1996–97 and 2002–03 School Years................................................... I-7 

Exhibit I.2 Estimates of Random Effects From School-Level Growth Models, Examining 

 Change in Various Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Between the 

 1996–97 and 2002–03 School Years................................................... I-8 
 
Appendix A 

List of SLC 

Cohort 1 

Grantees 

 Appendix A: List of SLC Cohort 1 Grantees A-3 

Appendix A 

List of SLC Cohort 1 Grantees 

State Grantee Name 

Number of 

Grantees 

n=63 

Number of 

Schools 

That Are 

Part of 

Grant 

n=119 

Amount of Grant 

California Los Angeles Unified School District 3 3 $1,494,118 

 Tamalpais Union High School District 1 1 $293,235 

 Moorpark Unified School District 1 1 $499,952 

 Grossmont Union High School District 1 1 $492,753 

 Roseville Joint Union High School 

District 

1 4 $2,449,438 

 Fresno Unified School District 1 2 $847,157 

 Norwalk-LaMirada School District 1 2 $999,887 

 Glendale Unified School District 1 1 $500,000 

 Oakland Unified School District 1 5 $2,500,000 

 East San Gabriel Valley ROP/TC 1 7 $2,496,914 

Connecticut Stamford Public Schools 1 3 $1,000,000 

Florida Broward County 1 3 $1,420,908 

Illinois J. Sterling Morton High School District 

#201 

1 1 $500,000 

 Rockford Public Schools #205 1 1 $500,000 

Kansas Kansas City Public Schools #500 1 4 $1,977,290 

Louisiana Saint Charles Public School System/ 

MetroVIsion SLC Consortium 

1 7 $2,500,000 

Maryland Frederick County Public Schools 1 1 $202,250 

 Prince George's County Public Schools 2 2 $999,255 

Massachusetts Cambridge Public Schools 1 1 $500,000 

 Brockton Public Schools 1 1 $500,000 

 Malden Public Schools 1 1 $469,365 

Michigan Monroe Public Schools 1 1 $493,200 

Minnesota Saint Paul Public Schools, ISD #625 1 1 $499,763 

Nebraska Omaha Public School 1 2 $1,970,800 

New Hampshire Nashua Public Schools 1 1 $999,253 

New Jersey Paterson Public Schools 1 2 $1,100,000 

 Trenton Public Schools 1 1 $421,163 

 Montclair School District 1 1 $494,700 

New Mexico Albuquerque Public Schools 1 6 $2,500,000 

New York Manhattan High School 

Superintendency 

1 1 $582,312 

 Bronx High Schools 1 5 $2,498,684 

 Freeport Public Schools 1 1 $1,500,000 

 Newburgh Enlarged City School 

District 

1 1 $499,893 

North Carolina Wake County Public School System 3 3 $1,479,088 

 Watauga County 1 1 $499,989 
 Appendix A: List of SLC Cohort 1 Grantees A-4 

State Grantee Name 

Number of 

Grantees 

n=63 

Number of 

Schools 

That Are 

Part of 

Grant 

n=119 

Amount of Grant 

Ohio Cincinnati Public Schools 1 5 $2,496,841 

 Reynoldsburg City Schools 1 1 $721,932 

 Cleveland Municipal School District 1 3 $1,500,000 

Oregon North Clackamas School District 1 3 $840,225 

 Beaverton School District #48 1 1 $500,000 

 Eugene School District 1 1 $433,606 

 David Douglas School District 1 1 $499,991 

Pennsylvania School District of the City of Allentown 1 2 $994,719 

 Reading School District 1 1 $332,335 

South Carolina Charleston County School District 1 1 $447,343 

 Sumter School District #17 1 1 $500,001 

South Dakota Rapid City Area Schools 1 3 $100,000 

Tennessee Sevier County Schools 1 1 $250,000 

Texas Irving Independent School District 1 3 $1,913,000 

 Hays Consolidated Independent 

School District 

1 1 $498,050 

 Houston Independent School District 1 5 $2,553,512 

 San Marcos Consolidated School 

District 

1 1 $500,000 

Utah Davis School District 1 1 $499,985 

Vermont Burlington School District 1 1 $1,318,754 

Virginia Newport News Public Schools 1 1 $500,338 

 Norfolk Public Schools 1 1 $498,234 

Wisconsin Milwaukee Public Schools 1 1 $499,898 

 Madison Metropolitan School District 1 1 $500,000 
 

Appendix B 

Annual 

Performance 

Report 
 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-3 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 Annual Performance Report

 Smaller Learning Communities (SLC)

 District Cover Sheet 

1. PR/Award No. (e.g. H185A200211-95) 

See Block 4 on your last Notification of Grant 

Award. 

2. LEA Name and Address: 

NCES District ID: 

Unless address has changed, repeat from Block 

1 on your last Notification of Grant Award. 

3. Total District Enrollment – Grades 9 - 12 

Provide number of students enrolled in grades 9 

through 12 during performance reporting period. 

4. Project: 

Title: 

Number of Schools Included in the Grant: 

The title should be identical to that on the 

approved application. 

5. Contact Person: 

Name: 

Title: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

E-mail Address: 

Provide the name and title of the project director 

or other individual who is most familiar with the 

content of the performance report. Also include 

telephone and fax numbers and E-mail address. 

6. Performance Reporting Period: 

This is the time frame for the information 

requested on the Individual School Performance 

Reports. (See instructions for details.) 

7. Current Budget Period: 

See Block 5 of your last Notification of Grant 

Award. 

8. Authorized Representative: 

Name: (Typed or printed) 

Signature: 

Title: 

Date: 

OMB Control Number: 1810-0632
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-4 

U.S. Department of Education 

Annual Performance Report

SLC Individual School Performance Report 

Please complete an Individual School Performance Report for each school covered by the SLC grant. 

1. School Identification:

2. School Background: 

9th

Grade 

10th

Grade 

11th

Grade 

12th

Grade Totals 

Size (number of students): 

Enrolled in the school 

Involved in SLCs 

Student Race Categories (number of students; 

report for all students enrolled in the school): 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Black or African-American 

Hispanic or Latino 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

White 

More than One Race 

Other Student Demographics (number of students; 

report for all students enrolled in the school): 

Limited English Proficient/English Language Learners 

Disabled 

Name: 

NCES ID:
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-5 

3. SLC Strategies: (Please refer to instructions on page 5 to complete this section.) 

Number of Students 

Involved in Each Strategy Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 

Adult advocates/ mentors 

Block scheduling 

Career academies 

Career clusters/pathways 

Freshman Academy 

Houses 

Magnet programs 

Schools-within-a-school 

Teacher advisory programs 

Teacher teams 

Other (please specify): 

4. Student Outcomes 

A. Statewide assessments: 

Please provide the number of students scoring at each proficiency level on the State assessment. Report this for each 

grade and subject assessed. State assessments differ in the number of levels of proficiency measured--please use as 

many rows and columns as your school needs. For each subject, circle the level of performance that corresponds 

with “proficient.” 

Subject 

Number 

Tested Level I Level II Level III Level IV Level V 

Reading/Lang.Arts 

9th grade 

10th grade 

11th grade 

12th grade 

Mathematics 

9th grade 

10th grade 

11th grade 

12th grade 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-6 

B. College entrance exams

Enter “0” if no students at the school took a college entrance exam. 

SAT ACT 

Number of students taking exam: 

Average score: 

C. Other outcome measures: 

Enter “0” if no student completed the activity described in the “Measures” column. If the activity does not apply to 

your school (e.g., your school does not have extracurricular activities), enter “NA.” 

Measures 

9th

Grade 

10th

Grade 

11th

Grade 

12th

Grade 

Overall reported ADA for October 

Number of students who graduated this year 

Number of graduates who attend a 2- or 4-year college within one year 

after graduation 

Number of students who take classes for which they receive both high 

school and college credit (dual enrollment) 

 

Number of students involved in extracurricular activities 

Number of incidences of student violence 

Number of reported incidences of alcohol or drug use 

Number of disciplinary actions (suspensions and expulsions) 

D. Project status narrative

Refer to instructions on page 7 to complete this section. 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-7 

Instructions for the Annual Performance Report 

Recipients of discretionary grants must submit an annual performance report. The report describes progress made 

by the grantee toward meeting project goals. [For additional information see sections 75.118, 75.253, and 75.590 of 

the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR).] 

Annual Performance Reports will be due June 30th of each project year. 

• Hardcopy submission. Please submit an original performance report, along with one copy. Reports should be 

sent to: 

Smaller Learning Communities Grant Program 

US Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20202 

• Electronic submission. Grantees may submit annual performance reports electronically. Both PDF and Word 

versions of the performance report can be obtained from the Smaller Learning Community Program's web page. 

The URL follows: 

www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SLCP

Once completed, reports may be returned to the SLCP e-mail address. It is: 

 

www.smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov

The following sections offer guidance for just those performance report questions that are not self-explanatory. 

I. SLC District Cover Sheet. The questions on this sheet apply to the district—the entity that acts as the fiscal 

agent for the SLC grants. 

• Question 6 (Performance Reporting Period). The performance reporting period refers to the school year just 

completed. 

II. SLC Individual School Performance Report. Submit an individual school performance sheet for each school 

on whose behalf the LEA obtained SLC program funds. Please do not fill in the shaded boxes. 

• Question 2 (School Background). Describe student demographics for all students enrolled in the school—not 

just those participating in an SLC. 

• Question 3 (SLC Strategies). This question will be answered differently by grantees with planning grants and 

grantees with implementation grants. 

Planning grants: 

3Indicate the SLCs that are (or will be) included in the Implementation Plan and the grade levels each will affect 

by placing "Xs" in appropriate cells. 

3If plans call for involving students within a grade level in more than one SLC activity, place an X in more than 

one row. For example, if plans call for involving all 9th graders in a career academy and in a teacher advisory 

program, each of these SLCs would be given an X in the 9th grade column. 

Implementation grants: 

3Report the number of students participating in one or more of the school’s SLCs. 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-8 

3Students within a grade level may be counted in more than one row. Some 9th graders, for example, may 

benefit from enrollment in a career academy and from team teaching. 

Definitions of SLCs (also available on the SLCP web page): 

Adult advocates/mentors. This model of personalization ensures that at least one adult knows each 

student well. Teachers, counselors, other school staff, and community volunteers—all of whom must be 

trained—can fulfill this “caring adult” role. Adult advocates meet with 15-20 students individually or in 

small groups on a regular basis over several years, providing rapport, academic and personal guidance. 

Block scheduling. Class time is extended from 45-50 minute periods to blocks of 80-90 minutes. The 

added time allows teachers to provide individual attention, work together in interdisciplinary fashion, and a 

greater variety of learning activities. 

Career academies. Career academies are a type of school-within-a-school. Career academies organize 

curriculum around one or more careers or occupations. They integrate academic and occupation-related 

classes. 

Career clusters/pathways. Career clusters are broad industry areas that address all careers within the area, 

from technical through professional. Career clusters identify academic and technical skills needed by 

students as they transition from high school to post-secondary education and or employment. 

Freshman academy. Also called a ninth grade academy, a freshman academy is designed to bridge middle 

school and high school. It responds to the high ninth-grade drop-out rate experienced by some high 

schools. 

Houses. With the house model, students across grades are assigned to groups of a few hundred each. Each 

house has its own discipline policies, student activity program, student government, and social activities. 

Students take some or all courses with their house members and from their house teachers. 

Magnet programs. Magnet schools generally have a core focus (e.g., math and science, the arts); they 

usually draw their students from the entire district. Magnets may or may not have competitive admission 

requirements. 

Schools-within-a-school. With this model, a large school is broken into individual schools. Individual 

schools are milti-age and may be organized around a theme; they are separate and autonomous units with 

their own personnel, budget, and program; they operate within a larger school, sharing resources and 

facilities. Students and faculty choose to affiliate with one school-within-a-school. 

Teacher advisory programs. With this model of personalization, administrators and teachers are assigned 

a small number of students for whom they remain responsible over three or four years of high school. The 

homeroom period is changed to a teacher-advisory period. 

Teacher teams. Academic teaming organizes groups of teachers across departments so that teachers share 

the same students rather than the same subject. Teaming links teachers who teach different subjects in a 

team that shares responsibility for the curriculum, instruction, evaluation, and sometimes scheduling and 

discipline for a group of 100-150 students. 

• Question 4A (Statewide Assessments). Statewide assessments across the US report anywhere from three to five 

levels of student achievement (only three levels are required by ESEA—“partially proficient,” “proficient,” and 

“advanced”). Please report your school’s results using as many of columns as you need, circling the column 

heading that corresponds to “proficient” in your state. Do this for each subject measured. 

• Question 4C (Other Outcome Measures). To ensure the comparability of data collected in different schools or 

in the same school over time, please use the following definitions of student violence and disciplinary actions. 

They are from the School Survey on Crime and Safety conducted for the National Center for Education 

Statistics. Please do not fill in the shaded boxes. 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-9 

At school/at your school—include activities happening in school buildings, on school grounds, on school 

buses, and at places that are holding school-sponsored activities. Include only those times that were normal 

school hours or when school activities/events were in session. 

Violence—actual, attempted, or threatened fight or assault.

Disciplinary actions—removal (for more than one year) with no continuing school services, transfer, 

suspension, removal for less than one year, referral to counseling or to a special program (to reduce 

problem), punishment (e.g., detention, loss of student privileges), or withdrawal of services (e.g., kept off 

school bus). 

• Question 4D (project status). Report the progress made in enacting your proposal. 

Describe: 

3progress made toward producing a viable implementation plan (for planning grant recipients) or toward 

implementing smaller learning communities (for implementation grant recipients); 

3activities and accomplishments in the year since the start of the project or since submission of the last 

performance report (where possible, quantify information on activities, accomplishments, and outcomes); 

3progress on goals and objectives; and 

3reasons why a planned objective was not attained, or a planned activity was not conducted as scheduled 

(include a description of the steps and schedule for addressing the problems). 

III. Budget Information. Describe the current status of your budget expenditures. If you are not expending funds 

at the rate expected, explain why. Describe any significant changes to your budget resulting from modifications of 

project activities. Do you expect to have unexpended funds at the end of the budget period? If you do, explain why 

and provide an estimate. 

For projects that require recipients to provide matching funds or other non-federal resources, also provide the total of 

all non-federal contributions as of 30 days before the due date of the performance report. 

IV. Supplemental Information/Changes. Please tell us about any changes you wish to make in project strategies, 

activities, or outcomes. Provide any other information that will help us understand the status of your project as you 

prepare for the next budget period. 
Appendix B: Annual Performance Report B-10 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 1810-0632 and will expire on 10/31/2003. The time required to complete these forms is 

estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time to review instructions and complete the survey. If you 

have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, 

please write to: U.S Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651. If you have any comments or 

concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, Federal Office Building 6, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202. 
 

Appendix C 

Periodic 

Implementation 

Surveys, 

2002 and 2003 
 
 OMB No.: 1875-0217 

Expires: 03/31/2005 

ID: 1-5/ 

Batch: 1841-1842

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-3 

 

Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: 

Periodic Implementation Survey of Schools, 2002 

This survey is being conducted for the U.S. Department of Education and is part of its effort to 

learn about the implementation and early impact of the federal Smaller Learning Communities 

(SLC) Program. The program represents a federal commitment to help school districts plan and 

implement both strategies for creating smaller learning communities and effective and innovative 

changes in curriculum and instruction in high schools. 

All principals of high schools who have received funds from the SLC Program are being asked to 

complete this survey, so your response is very important to us. We estimate that the survey 

will take about 55 minutes to complete. You may find it useful to consult additional 

members of your school staff when completing specific questions or for help with the entire 

survey. Please note that the survey has a number of separate sections printed on colored paper. 

Each section pertains to an SLC structure (i.e., Career Academies) that you have been 

implementing. According to the information you provided as part of the Annual 

Performance Review (APR), your school should complete the sections checked below. You 

are only asked to complete those sections that apply to your school. Each of these structures 

or strategies is defined in the appropriate section of the survey; if you have any questions about 

the sections of the survey you should complete, or any survey content questions, please contact 

Lindsay Page, toll-free, at (866) 366-8143. 

ο Career Academies (lavender) 

ο Freshman Academies (yellow) 

ο House Plans (blue) 

ο Schools-within-a-School (pink) 

ο Magnet Schools (ivory) 

ο Other Strategies, including: Block Scheduling, Career Clusters/Pathways, Adult 

Advocates/Mentors, Teacher Advisory Programs, and Teacher Teams (orange) 

Please complete the following contact information to facilitate any necessary survey follow up. 

Mailing label here [Avery no. 5160, 1 x 2-5/8 will fit JUST BARELY] 

Please answer all the questions, and return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed 

prepaid FedEx envelope. All information that would permit identification of the individual 

respondent will be held in strict confidence, will be used only by persons engaged in and for the 

purposes of the survey, and will not be disclosed or released to others for any purpose, as 

required by law. 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such a collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1875-0217. The time required to 

complete this information collection is estimated to average 55 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing 

data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the 

accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-

4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Planning and 

Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202-4651.
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-4 

 

I. SLC Program Implementation 

A. Federal SLC Program Implementation 

This first set of questions is focused on your school’s planning for and implementation of the federal SLC 

grant program. 

1. When did your school first receive funding from the federal SLC grant received by your district? 

(Select one.)

 ρ 1 Fall 2000 (i.e., August to December) 6/ 

 ρ 2 Spring 2001 (i.e., January to June) 

 ρ 3 Fall 2001 (i.e., August to December) 

 ρ 4 Other (Please specify) ______________________________________ 7-8/ 

2. When did you begin planning and design for your federally funded SLC program? 

 __ / ____ 9-14/ 

 (mm/yyyy) 

3. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation. 

 _____ % 15-17/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-5 

 

4. Some schools have implemented aspects of SLCs before receiving funding through the federal 

SLC grant program. In column A below, please indicate school-level SLC-type changes made 

prior to receiving federal SLC funding. In column B, indicate school-level SLC-type changes 

that have occurred as a result of federal SLC program funding. (Check all that apply. You may 

check both column A and column B if there was work done both prior to and as a result of federal 

SLC funding.)

School-level changes designed to foster small learning 

communities 

A 

Changes 

prior to 

federal 

SLC 

funding? 

 B 

Changes 

related 

to SLC 

federal 

funding? 

a. School governance/administrative structure has been 

reconstructed (e.g., site-based management) 

ο 1

18/ 

ο 2

19/ 

b. Structural changes have been made to student cohort 

organization (e.g., by grade, by house, by duties of 

teachers) 

ο 1

20/ 

ο 2

21/ 

c. School physical space has been changed to 

accommodate SLCs 

ο 1

22/ 

ο 2

23/ 

d. The manner in which students are placed in courses 

has changed (e.g., elimination of tracking) 

ο 1

24/ 

ο 2

25/ 

e. New courses specific to SLCs have been introduced ο 1

26/ 

ο 2

27/ 

f. Curriculum and/or instructional staff have been reorganized based upon content/structure of SLCs 

ο 1

28/ 

ο 2

29/ 

g. School-wide core curriculum has been made more 

academically rigorous 

ο 1

30/ 

ο 2

31/ 

h. Local assessment (e.g., school- or district-level) 

options have been altered to reflect SLCs (e.g., use 

of projects/portfolios) 

ο 1

32/ 

ο 2

33/ 

i. Staff development and training specific to SLCs 

have been introduced 

ο 1

34/ 

ο 2

35/ 

j. Other (Please specify): 

__________________________ 36-37/

ο 1

38/ 

ο 2

39/ 

k. None of the above ο 1

40/ 

ο 2

41/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-6 

 

5. In column A, please indicate classroom-level SLC-type changes made prior to receiving 

federal SLC funding. In column B, indicate classroom-level changes that have occurred 

as a result of federal SLC program funding. (Check all that apply. You may check both 

Column A and Column B if there was work done both prior to and as a result of federal 

SLC funding.) 

Classroom-level changes designed to foster 

small learning communities 

A 

Changes 

prior to 

federal 

SLC 

funding? 

B 

Changes 

related to 

SLC 

federal 

funding? 

a. Students keep same homeroom teacher 

throughout high school 

ο 1

42/ 

ο 2

43/ 

b. Independent study is available in core academic 

courses 

ο 1

44/ 

ο 2

45/ 

c. More varied student assessments are used for 

grading and promotion decisions 

ο 1

46/ 

ο 2

47/ 

d. Mixed-ability or multi-grade classes are 

available in core academic subjects 

ο 1

48/ 

ο 2

49/ 

e. A cooperative learning focus has been 

integrated into the curriculum 

ο 1

50/ 

ο 2

51/ 

f. Student evaluations of teachers are being used ο 1

52/ 

ο 2

53/ 

g. There is flexible time for classes and additional 

study 

ο 1

54/ 

ο 2

55/ 

h. Students are taught by the same cluster of 

teachers for multiple years 

ο 1

56/ 

ο 2

57/ 

i. Teachers serve as advisors/mentors ο 1

58/ 

ο 2

59/ 

j. Other (Please specify): 

______________________ 60-61/ 

ο 1

62/ 

ο 2

63/ 

k. None of the above ο 1

64/ 

ο 2

65/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-7 

 

6. How important were each of the following factors in your decision to apply for a federal 

SLC grant? 

Not 

important 

Rather 

important 

Very 

important 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic factors 

a. Student academic achievement ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

66/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

67/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

68/ 

d. Student academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

69/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

70/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

71/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

72/ 

h. Acquisition of technical skills ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

73/ 

i. Other (Please specify): 

________________________ 74-75/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

76/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal factors 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

77/ 

b. Dropout rates ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

78/ 

c. Incidence of student violence ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

79/ 

d. Participation rates in extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

80/ 

e. Incidence of student tardiness ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

81/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

82/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

83/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/ 

interaction 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

84/ 

i. Other (Please specify): 

________________________ 85-86/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

87/ 

7. Did teachers in your school contribute to the preparation of the SLC grant proposal? If yes, what 

percentage of teachers contributed to the preparation of the grant proposal? 

ρ 1 Yes 88/ 88/ 

 Percentage of teachers: _____% 89-91/

ρ 2 No 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-8 

 

8. Did the teachers in your school vote on whether to apply for an SLC grant? If yes, what 

percentage of teachers voted to participate? 

 ρ 1 Yes 92/ 

 Percentage of teachers: _____% 93-95/ 

 ρ 2 No

On the following pages are different modules of questions (each in a different color) that pertain to the 

SLC strategies employed by your school. Please complete only those modules that have been indicated 

on the cover sheet of the survey. Please complete all questions in each applicable module, being certain 

to follow the instructions that are provided. You may wish to have other staff assist you with this task. 

Following these modules, there are additional questions to be answered about your school’s overall 

experience implementing an SLC program. 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-9 

 

Career Academy Module 

Please complete this module only if you are implementing one or more Career Academies. 

Career Academies are one type of school-within-a-school that organize curricula around one or more 

careers or occupations. They integrate academic and occupation-related classes. 

1. When did implementation of the first Career Academy begin? 

 __ / ____ 96-101/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Is your implementation of Career Academies new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

ρ 1 Yes 102/

ρ 2 No

3. In the 2001-2002 school year, are you using federal SLC grant funds to support your Career 

Academy? 

ρ 1 Yes 103/ 

ρ 2 No

4. What percentage of the students at your school at each grade level participates in Career 

Academies? 

 _____% of 9th graders 104-106/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 107-109/ 

 _____% of 11th graders 110-112/

 _____% of 12th graders 113-115/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-10 

 

The following questions are about the different Career Academy groups in your school. 

5. Below we ask you to describe each of your Career Academy groups. There is space to describe up 

to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest. Complete section A with the 

names of your Career Academy groups. In section B, please identify the theme, if any, of each 

Career Academy. In section C, please estimate the number of students in each Career Academy 

group. In section D, please provide the demographic characteristics of students in each Career 

Academy. If exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you can, giving a single 

number and not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given within racial composition and 

gender add up to 100 percent in each case.

Characteristics of Career Academy Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name ________ 116-117 

__________ 118-119/ __________ 120-121/ __________ 122-123/ 

B. Theme (if any) ________ 124-125/ 

__________ 126-127/ __________ 128-129/ __________ 130-131/ 

C. Student enrollment in 2001-

2002 

_____ 132-135/ _____ 136-139/ 

_____ 140-143/ 

_____ 144-147/ 

D. Demographic characteristics 

Students living in poverty, i.e., 

those students who would qualify 

for free/reduced-price lunch. 

_____% 148-150/ _____% 151-153/ _____% 154-156/ _____% 157-159/ 

Racial composition (%) 

a. American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

_____% 160-162/ _____% 163-165/ _____% 166-168/ _____% 169-171/ 

b. Asian _____% 172-174/ 

_____% 175-177/ _____% 178-180/ _____% 181-183/ 

c. Black or African-American _____% 184-186/ 

_____% 187-189/ _____% 190-192/ _____% 193-195/ 

d. Hispanic or Latino _____% 196-198/ 

_____% 199-201/ _____% 202-204/ _____% 205-207/ 

e. Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

_____% 208-210/ _____% 211-213/ _____% 214-216/ _____% 217-219/ 

f. White _____% 220-222/ 

_____% 223-225/ _____% 226-228/ _____% 229-231/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 232-234/ 

_____% 235-237/ _____% 238-240/ _____% 241-243/ 

b. Female _____% 244-246/ 

_____% 247-249/ _____% 250-252/ _____% 253-255/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 256-258/ 

_____% 259-261/ _____% 262-264/ _____% 265-267/ 

Special needs (%) 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 268-270/ _____% 271-273/ _____% 274-276/ _____% 277-279/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-11 

 

These questions ask about all Career Academies in your school. 

6. Which students are eligible to participate in a Career Academy? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students 280/ 

ρ 2 Students in certain grades participate 281/ 

ρ 3 Students interested in particular subject areas 282/ 

ρ 4 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 283/ 

ρ 5 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 284/ 

ρ 6 Students who have completed pre-requisite courses 285/

ρ 7 Students participate on a voluntary basis 286/

ρ 8 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 287/ 

 288-289/ 

7. How are students selected to participate in the Career Academies that have been 

implemented at your school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students participate 290/

ρ 2 All students in certain grades participate 291/

ρ 3 Students self-select 292/

ρ 4 Random assignment 293/

ρ 5 Most qualified are selected 294/

ρ 6 Academic need 295/

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 296/

 297-298/ 

8. Does your school’s Career Academy program have its own: (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Budget 299/

ρ 2 Staff 300/

ρ 3 Instructional leadership teams 301/

ρ 4 Operating procedures 302/

ρ 5 Discipline policies 303/

 

9. Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Career Academy program at 

your school? 

ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to question 10) 304/ 

ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer 9a) 

ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer 9a) 

9a. If the Career Academy program has a separate physical space in the school campus, what 

percent of time, on average, do students spend in the Career Academy area in a school 

day? 

_____ % 305-307/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-12 

 

10. During the 2001-2002 school year, do teachers have common planning time for Career Academy 

 program activities? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 10a) 308/ 

ρ 2 No (Skip to question 11) 

10a. If yes, about how often do teachers in your school participated in common 

planning related to the Career Academy program? 

ρ 1 Less than once a month 309/ 

ρ 2 About once a month 

ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

ρ 4 Weekly 

ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

ρ 6 Daily 

11. How were teachers assigned to or within the Career Academy program? (Check all that 

apply.) 

ρ 1 All teachers have been assigned to the Career Academy program 310/ 

ρ 2 Teachers volunteered 311/ 

ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 312/ 

ρ 4 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 313/ 

ρ 5 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 314/ 

ρ 6 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 315/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 316/ 

317-318/

12. In the 2001-2002 school year, do students enrolled in each Career Academy take all of their courses 

within their own Career Academy? 

ρ 1 Yes (Skip to question 13) 319/ 

ρ 2 No (Answer question 12a)

12a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, is taken within the Career Academy? 

 _____ % 320-322/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-13 

 

13. What kinds of assessments are utilized in the Career Academy program? Are any of these new since 

federal SLC funding was received? (Check all that apply.)

Utilized? 

New since 

SLC 

funding? 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

323/ 

ο 2

324/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

325/ 

ο 2

326/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, 

student exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

327/ 

ο 2

328/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1

329/ 

ο 2

330/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1

331/ 

ο 2

332/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

__________________________________333-

334

ο 1

335/ 

ο 2

336/ 

14. For each of the following, at which level are decisions made? (Check one per row.) 

 Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School and 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

only 

a. Career Academy 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

337/ 

b. Selection of Career 

Academy 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

338/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

339/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

340/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the Career 

Academy 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

341/ 

f. Career Academy 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

342/ 

g. Career Academy 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

343/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-14 

 

 Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School and 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

only 

h. Overall Career 

Academy budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

344/ 

i. Allocations within 

Career Academy 

budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

345/ 

j. Hiring for Career 

Academy positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

346/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next module you are to complete (as indicated by the 

check box list on the cover of the survey) or to the remaining questions that appear on the white pages 

at the back of the survey. 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-15 

 

Freshman Academy Module 

Please complete this module only if you are implementing one or more Freshman Academies. 

Freshman Academies, also called Ninth Grade Academies or Freshman Transition Activities, are designed 

to bridge middle and high school. They respond to the high ninth-grade dropout rate experienced by some 

high schools. 

1. When did implementation of the first Freshman Academy begin? 

 __ / ____ 347-352/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Is your implementation of Freshman Academies new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 353/ 

 ρ 2 No

3. In the 2001-2002 school year, are you using federal SLC grant funds to support your Freshman 

Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes 354/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. In the 2001-2002 school year, what percentage of the students in 9th grade participates in Freshman 

Academies? 

 _____% 355-357/ 

 4a. Do students who are repeating 9th grade participate in Freshman Academies? 

 ρ 1 Yes 358/ 

 ρ 2 No
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-16 

 

The following questions are about the different Freshman Academy groups in your school. 

5. Below we ask you to describe each of your Freshman Academy groups. There is space to describe 

up to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest. Complete section A with 

each of the names of your Freshman Academy groups. In section B, please identify the theme, if 

any, of each Freshman Academy. In section C, please estimate the number of students in each 

Freshman Academy group. In section D, please provide demographic characteristics of students in 

each Freshman Academy. If exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you can, 

giving a single number and not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given within racial 

composition and gender add up to 100 percent in each case. 

Characteristics of Freshman Academy Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 359-360/ 

__________ 361-362/ __________ 363-364/ __________ 365-366/ 

B. Theme (if any) __________ 367-368/ 

__________ 369-370/ __________ 371-372/ __________ 373-374/ 

C. Student enrollment in 

2001-2002 _____ 375-378/ 

_____ 379-382/ 

_____ 383-386/ 

_____ 387-390/ 

D. Demographic 

characteristics 

Students living in poverty, 

i.e., those students who would 

qualify for free/reduced-price 

lunch. 

_____% 391-393/ _____% 394-396/ _____% 397-399/ _____% 400-402/ 

Racial composition (%) 

a. American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

_____% 403-405/ _____% 406-408/ _____% 409-411/ _____% 412-414/ 

b. Asian _____% 415-417/ _____% 418-420/ _____% 421-423/ _____% 424-426/ 

c. Black or African-American _____% 427-429/ _____% 430-432/ _____% 433-435/ _____% 436-438/ 

d. Hispanic or Latino _____% 439-441/ _____% 442-444/ _____% 445-447/ _____% 448-450/ 

e. Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

_____% 451-453/ 

_____% 454-456/ _____% 457-459/ _____% 460-462/ 

f. White _____% 463-465/ _____% 466-468/ _____% 469-471/ _____% 472-474/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 475-477/ 

_____% 478-480/ _____% 481-483/ _____% 484-486/ 

b. Female _____% 487-489/ _____% 490-492/ _____% 493-495/ _____% 496-498/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 499-501/ 

_____% 502-504/ _____% 505-507/ _____% 508-510/ 

Special needs (%) 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 511-513/ 

_____% 514-516/ _____% 517-519/ _____% 520-522/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-17 

 

These questions ask about all Freshman Academy groups in your school. 

6. Which students are eligible to participate in a Freshman Academy? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All ninth grade students, including repeaters 523/

ρ 2 All first-time ninth grade students (no repeaters) 524/

ρ 3 Students interested in particular subject areas 525/

ρ 4 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 526/

ρ 5 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 527/

ρ 6 Students who have completed pre-requisite courses 528/ 

ρ 7 Students participate on a voluntary basis 529/ 

ρ 8 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 530/ 

 31-532/ 

7. How are students selected to participate in the Freshman Academies that have been implemented at 

your school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All ninth grade students, including repeaters, participate 533/ 

ρ 2 All first-time ninth grade students (no repeaters) participate 534/

ρ 3 Students self-select 535/ 

ρ 4 Random assignment 536/ 

ρ 5 Most qualified are selected 537/ 

ρ 6 Academic need 538/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 539/

 540-541/ 

8. Does your school’s Freshman Academy program have its own: (Check all that apply.) 

 ρ 1 Budget 542/

 ρ 2 Staff 543/

 ρ 3 Instructional leadership teams 544/

 ρ 4 Operating procedures 545/ 

 ρ 5 Discipline policies 546/

9. Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Freshman Academy program at your 

school? 

ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to question 10) 547/ 

ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer 9a) 

ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer 9a) 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-18 

 

 9a. If the Freshman Academy program has a separate physical space in the school campus, what 

 percent of time, on average, do students spend in the Freshman Academy area in a school day? 

 _____ % 548-550/

10. During the 2001-2002 school year, do teachers have common planning time for Freshman 

Academy program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 10a) 551/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to question 11) 

 10a. If yes, about how often have teachers in your school participated in common planning related 

to the Freshman Academy program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 552/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 

11. How were teachers assigned to or within the Freshman Academy program? (Check all that apply.) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 553/ 

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 554/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 555/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 556/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 557/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 558/

 559-560/

12. In the 2001-2002 school year, do students enrolled in each Freshman Academy take all of their 

courses within their own Freshman Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to question 13) 561/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer question 12a) 

 12a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, is taken within the Freshman 

Academy? 

 _____ % 562-564/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-19 

 

13. What kinds of assessments are utilized in the Freshman Academy program? Are any of these new 

since federal SLC funding was received? (Check all that apply.) 

Utilized? 

New since 

SLC 

funding? 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

565/ 

ο 2

566/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

567/ 

ο 2

568/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, 

student exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

569/ 

ο 2

570/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1

571/ 

ο 2

572/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1

573/ 

ο 2

574/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________________ 575-576/

ο 1

577/ 

ο 2

578/ 

14. For each of the following, at which level are decisions made? (Check one per row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

only 

a. Freshman Academy 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

579/ 

b. Selection of Freshman 

Academy instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

580/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

581/ 

d. Student promotion and 

graduation decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

582/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

Freshman Academy 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

583/ 

f. Freshman Academy 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

584/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-20 

 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

only 

g. Freshman Academy 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

585/ 

h. Overall Freshman 

Academy budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

586/ 

i. Allocations with 

Freshman Academy 

budget 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

587/ 

j. Hiring for Freshman 

Academy positions 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

588/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next module you are to complete (as indicated by the 

check box list on the cover of the survey) or to the remaining questions that appear on the white pages at the 

back of the survey. 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-21 

 

House Plan Module 

Please complete this module only if you are implementing one or more House Plans. 

House Plans are comprised of students assembled across grades and assigned to groups of a few hundred 

each. Each House has its own disciplinary policy, student activity program, student government, and social 

activities. Students take some or all courses with their House members and from their House teachers. 

1. When did implementation of the first House Plan begin? 

 __ / ____ 589-594/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Is your implementation of House Plans new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 595/ 

 ρ 2 No

3. In the 2001-2002 school year, are you using federal SLC grant funds to support your House Plan? 

 ρ 1 Yes 596/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. In the 2001-2002 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade level 

participates in House Plans? 

 _____% of 9th graders 597-599/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 600-602/

 _____% of 11th graders 603-605/

 _____% of 12th graders 606-608/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-22 

 

The following questions are about the different House Plan groups in your school.

5. Below we ask you to describe each of your House Plan groups. There is space to describe 

up to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest. Complete section A 

with the names of your House Plan groups. In section B, please identify the theme, if any, 

of each House Plan. In section C, please estimate the number of students in each House 

Plan group. In section D, please provide demographic characteristics of students in each of 

these House Plans. If exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you 

can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given 

within racial composition and gender add up to 100 percent in each case. 

Characteristics of House Plan Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 609-610/ 

__________ 611-612/ __________ 613-614/ __________ 615-616/ 

B. Theme (if any) __________ 617-618/ 

__________ 619-620/ __________ 621-622/ __________ 623-624/ 

C. Student enrollment in 2001-

2002 _____ 625-628/ 

_____ 629-632/ 

_____ 633-636/ 

_____ 637-640/ 

D. Demographic characteristics 

Students living in poverty, i.e., 

those students who would 

qualify for free/reduced-price 

lunch. 

_____% 641-643/ _____% 644-646/ _____% 647-649/ _____% 650-652/ 

Racial composition (%) 

a. American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

_____% 653-655/ _____% 656-658/ _____% 659-661/ _____% 662-664/ 

b. Asian _____% 665-667/ 

_____% 668-670/ _____% 671-673/ _____% 674-676/ 

c. Black or African-American _____% 677-679/ 

_____% 680-682/ _____% 683-685/ _____% 686-688/ 

d. Hispanic or Latino _____% 689-691/ 

_____% 692-694/ _____% 695-697/ _____% 698-700/ 

e. Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

_____% 701-703/ _____% 704-706/ _____% 707-709/ _____% 710-712/ 

f. White _____% 713-715/ 

_____% 716-718/ _____% 719-721/ _____% 722-724/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 725-727/ 

_____% 728-730/ _____% 731-733/ _____% 734-736/ 

b. Female _____% 737-739/ 

_____% 740-742/ _____% 743-745/ _____% 746-748/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 749-751/ 

_____% 752-754/ _____% 755-757/ _____% 758-760/ 

Special needs (%) 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 761-763/ _____% 764-766/ _____% 767-769/ _____% 770-772/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-23 

 

These questions ask about all House Plans in your school. 

6. Which students are eligible to participate in a House Plan? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students 773/

ρ 2 Students in certain grades participate 774/

ρ 3 Students interested in particular subject areas 775/

ρ 4 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 776/

ρ 5 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 777/

ρ 6 Students who have completed pre-requisite courses 778/

ρ 7 Students participate on a voluntary basis 779/

ρ 8 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 780/

 781-782/ 

7. How are students selected to participate in the House Plans that have been implemented at 

your school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students participate 783/

ρ 2 Students in certain grades participate 784/

ρ 3 Students self-select 785/

ρ 4 Random assignment 786/

ρ 5 Most qualified are selected 787/

ρ 6 Academic need 788/

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 789/

 790-791/ 

8. Does your school’s House Plan program have its own: (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Budget 792/

ρ 2 Staff 793/

ρ 3 Instructional leadership teams 794/

ρ 4 Operating procedures 795/

ρ 5 Discipline policies 796/

9. Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the House Plan program at your 

school? 

ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to question 10) 797/

ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer 9a) 

ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer 9a) 

9a. If the House Plan program has a separate physical space in the school campus, what 

percent of time, on average, do students spend in the House Plan area in a school 

day? 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-24 

 

_____ % 798-800/

 

10. During the 2001-2002 school year, do teachers have common planning time for House Plan 

program activities? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 10a) 801/

ρ 2 No (Skip to question 11) 

10a. If yes, about how often have teachers in your school participated in common 

planning related to the House Plan program? 

ρ 1 Less than once a month 802/

ρ 2 About once a month 

ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

ρ 4 Weekly 

ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

ρ 6 Daily 

11. How were teachers assigned to or within the House Plan program? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All teachers have been assigned to House Plans 803/ 

ρ 2 Teachers volunteered 804/

ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 805/ 

ρ 4 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 806/ 

ρ 5 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 807/

ρ 6 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 808/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 809/ 

 810-811/ 

12. In the 2001-2002 school year, do students enrolled in each House Plan take all of their 

courses within their own House Plan? 

ρ 1 Yes (Skip to question 13) 812/ 

ρ 2 No (Answer question 12a) 

12a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, is taken within the House Plan? 

 _____ % 813-815/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-25 

 

13. What kinds of assessments are utilized in the House Plan program? Are any of these new 

since federal SLC funding was received? (Check all that apply.) 

Utilized? 

New since 

SLC 

funding? 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

816/ 

ο 2

817/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

818/ 

ο 2

819/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, 

student exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

820/ 

ο 2

821/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1

822/ 

ο 2

823/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1

824/ 

ο 2

825/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________________ 826-827/

ο 1

828/ 

ο 2

829/ 

14. For each of the following, at which level are decisions made? (Check one per row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

School 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

House 

Plan 

decision 

House 

Plan 

decision 

only 

a. House Plan course 

offerings/curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

830/ 

b. Selection of House 

Plan instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

831/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

832/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

833/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the House 

Plan 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

834/ 

f. House Plan schedule 

(e.g., daily timetable 

weekly schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

835/ 

g. House Plan 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

836/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-26 

 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

School 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

House 

Plan 

decision 

House 

Plan 

decision 

only 

h. Overall House Plan 

budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

837/ 

i. Allocations within 

House Plan budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

838/ 

j. Hiring for House 

Plan positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

839/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next module you are to complete (as indicated 

by the check box list on the cover of the survey) or to the remaining questions that appear on the 

white pages at the back of the survey. 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-27 

 

School-within-a-School Module 

Please complete this module only if you are implementing one or more Schools-within-a-School. 

Schools-within-a-School break large schools into individual schools. Individual schools are multi-age and 

may be organized around a theme; they are separate and autonomous units with their own personnel, 

budgets, and programs. Schools-within-a-School operate within a larger school, sharing resources and 

facilities. Students and faculty affiliate with one School-within-a-School. 

1. When did implementation of the first School-within-a-School begin? 

__ / ____ 840-845/ 

(mm/yyyy)

2. Is your implementation of School(s)-within-a-School new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

ρ 1 Yes 846/

ρ 2 No 

3. In the 2001-2002 school year, are you using federal SLC grant funds to support your 

Schools-within-a-School? 

ρ 1 Yes 847/

ρ 2 No 

4. In the 2001-2002 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade 

level participates in Schools-within-a-School? 

_____% of 9th graders 848-850/

_____% of 10th graders 851-853/ 

_____% of 11th graders 854-856/ 

_____% of 12th graders 857-859/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-28 

 

The following questions are about the different School-within-a-School groups in your school. 

5. Below we ask you to describe your School-within-a-School groups. There is space to describe up 

to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest. Complete section A headings 

with the names of your School-within-a-School groups. In section B, please identify the theme, if 

any, of each School-within-a-School. In section C, please estimate the number of students in each 

School-within-a-School group. In section D, provide demographic characteristics of students in 

each School-within-a-School. If exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you 

can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given within 

racial composition and gender add up to 100% in each case. 

Characteristics of School-within-a-School Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 860-861/ 

__________ 862-863/ __________ 864-865/ __________ 866-867/ 

B. Theme (if any) __________ 868-869 

__________ 870-871/ __________ 872-873/ __________ 874-875/ 

C. Student enrollment in 

2001-2002 _____ 876-879/ 

_____ 880-883/ 

_____ 884-887/ 

_____ 888-891/ 

D. Demographic 

characteristics 

Students living in poverty, 

i.e., those students who would 

qualify for free/reduced-price 

lunch. 

_____% 892-894/ 

_____% 895-897/ _____% 898-890/ _____% 901-903/ 

Racial composition (%) 

a. American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

_____% 904-906/ _____% 907-909/ _____% 910-912/ _____% 913-915/ 

b. Asian _____% 916-918/ _____% 919-921/ _____% 922-924/ _____% 925-927/ 

c. Black or African-American _____% 928-930/ _____% 931-933/ _____% 934-936/ _____% 937-939/ 

d. Hispanic or Latino _____% 940-942/ _____% 943-945/ _____% 946-948/ _____% 949-951/ 

e. Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

_____% 952-954/ _____% 955-957/ _____% 958-960/ _____% 961-963/ 

f. White _____% 964-966/ _____% 967-969/ _____% 970-972/ _____% 973-975/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 976-978/ 

_____% 979-981/ _____% 982-984/ _____% 985-987/ 

b. Female _____% 988-990/ _____% 991-993/ _____% 994-996/ _____% 997-999/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 1000-1002/ 

_____% 1003-1005/ _____% 1006-1008/ _____% 1009-1011/ 

Special needs (%) 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 1012-1014/ 

_____% 1015-1017/ _____% 1018-1020/ _____% 1021-1023/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-29 

 

These questions ask about all Schools-within-a-School in your school. 

6. Which students are eligible to participate in a School-within-a-School? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students 1024/

ρ 2 Students in certain grades 1025/ 

ρ 3 Students interested in particular subject areas 1026/ 

ρ 4 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 1027/ 

ρ 5 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 1028/ 

ρ 6 Students who have completed pre-requisite courses 1029/ 

ρ 7 Students participate on a voluntary basis 1030/ 

ρ 8 Other (Please specify): __________________________________ 1031/ 

 1032-1033/ 

7. How are students selected to participate in the Schools-within-a-School that have been 

implemented at your school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students participate 1034/ 

ρ 2 All students in certain grades participate 1035/ 

ρ 3 Students self-select 1036/ 

ρ 4 Random assignment 1037/ 

ρ 5 Most qualified are selected 1038/ 

ρ 6 Academic need 1039/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1040/ 

 1041-1042/ 

8. Does your school’s School-within-a-School program have its own: (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Budget 1043/

ρ 2 Staff 1044/ 

ρ 3 Instructional leadership teams 1045/

ρ 4 Operating procedures 1046/

ρ 5 Discipline policies 1047/ 

9. Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the School-within-a-School 

program at your school? 

ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to question 10) 1048/ 

ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer 9a) 

ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer 9a) 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-30 

 

9a. If the School-within-a-School program has a separate physical space in the school 

campus, what percent of time, on average, do students spend in the School-withina-School area in a school day? 

_____ % 1049-1051/

10. During the 2001-2002 school year, do teachers have common planning time specific for 

School-within-a-School program activities? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 10a) 1052/

ρ 2 No (Skip to question 11) 

10a. If yes, about how often have teachers in your school participated in common 

planning related to the School-within-a-School program? 

ρ 1 Less than once a month 1053/

ρ 2 About once a month 

ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

ρ 4 Weekly 

ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

ρ 6 Daily 

11. How were teachers assigned to or within the School-within-a-School program? (Check all 

that apply.) 

ρ 1 All teachers have been assigned to the Schools-within-a-school program. 1054/ 

ρ 2 Teachers volunteered 1055/

ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 1056/ 

ρ 4 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 1057/ 

ρ 5 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 1058/ 

ρ 6 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 1059/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1060/ 

 1061-1062/ 

12. In the 2001-2002 school year, do students enrolled in each School-within-a-School take all 

of their courses within their own School-within-a-School? 

ρ 1 Yes (Skip to question 13) 1063/ 

ρ 2 No (Answer question 12a) 

12a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, is taken within the Schoolwithin-a-School? 

 _____ % 1064-1066/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-31 

 

13. What kinds of assessments are utilized in the School-within-a-School program? Are any of 

these new since federal SLC funding was received? Check all that apply.) 

Utilized? 

New since 

SLC 

funding? 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

1067/ 

ο 2

1068/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

1069/ 

ο 2

1070/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, 

student exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

1071/ 

ο 2

1072/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1

1073/ 

ο 2

1074/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1

1075/ 

ο 2

1076/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________________ 1077-1078/

ο 1

1079/ 

ο 2

1080/ 

14. For each of the following, at which level are decisions made? (Check one per row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

School 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

only 

a. School-within-aSchool course 

offerings/curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1081/ 

b. Selection of Schoolwithin-a-School 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1082/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1083/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1084/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

School-within-aSchool 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1085/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-32 

 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

School 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

only 

f. School-within-aSchool schedule 

(e.g., daily timetable 

weekly schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1086/ 

g. School-within-aSchool organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1087/ 

i. Overall Schoolwithin-a-School 

budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1088/ 

j. Allocations within 

Schools-within-aSchool budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1089/ 

k. Hiring for Schoolwithin-a-School 

positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1090/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next module you are to complete (as indicated 

by the check box list on the cover of the survey) or to the remaining questions that appear on the 

white pages at the back of the survey. 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-33 

 

Magnet School Module 

Please complete this module only if you are implementing one or more Magnet Schools. 

Magnet Schools generally have a core focus (e.g., math and science, the arts). They usually draw 

their students from the entire district. Magnet schools may or may not have competitive admission 

requirements. 

1. When did implementation of your Magnet School begin? 

 __ / ____ 1091-1096/

(mm/yyyy) 

2. Is your implementation of Magnet School(s) new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

ρ 1 Yes 1097/

ρ 2 No 

3. In the 2001-2002 school year, are you using federal SLC grant funds to support your 

Magnet School? 

ρ 1 Yes 1098/ 

ρ 2 No 

4. In the 2001-2002 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade 

level participates in a Magnet School? 

_____% of 9th graders 1099-1101/

_____% of 10th graders 1102-1104/ 

_____% of 11th graders 1105-1107/ 

_____% of 12th graders 1108-1110/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-34 

 

The following questions are about the different Magnet School groups in your school. 

5. Below we ask you to describe each of your Magnet School groups. There is space to describe up to 

four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest.. Complete section A with the 

names of your Magnet School groups. In section B, please identify the theme, if any, of each 

Magnet School. In section C, please estimate the number of students in each Magnet School group. 

In section D, please provide demographic characteristics of students in each of these Magnet 

Schools. If exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you can, giving a single 

number and not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given within racial composition and 

gender add up to 100 percent in each case. 

Characteristics of Magnet School Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 1111-1112/ 

__________ 1113-1114/ __________ 1115-1116/ __________ 1117-1118/ 

B. Theme (if any) __________ 1119-1120/ 

__________ 1121-1122/ __________ 1123-1124/ __________ 1125-1126/ 

C. Student enrollment in 2001-

2002 _____ 1127-1130/ 

_____ 1131-1134/ 

_____ 1135-1138/ 

_____ 1139-1142/ 

D. Demographic characteristics 

Students living in poverty, i.e., 

those students who would 

qualify for free/reduced-price 

lunch. 

_____% 1143-1145/ _____% 1146-1148/ _____% 1149-1151/ _____% 1152-1154/ 

Racial composition (%) 

a. American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

_____% 1155-1157/ _____% 1158-1160/ _____% 1161-1163/ _____% 1164-1166/ 

b. Asian _____% 1167-1169/ 

_____% 1170-1172/ _____% 1173-1175/ _____% 1176-1178/ 

c. Black or African-American _____% 1179-1181/ 

_____% 1182-1184/ _____% 1185-1187/ _____% 1188-1190/ 

d. Hispanic or Latino _____% 1191-1193// 

_____% 1194-1196/ _____% 1197-1199/ _____% 1200-1202/ 

e. Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

_____% 1203-1205/ _____% 1206-1208/ _____% 1209-1211/ _____% 1212-1214/ 

f. White _____% 1215-1217/ 

_____% 1218-1220/ _____% 1221-1223/ _____% 1224-1226/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 1227-1229/ 

_____% 1230-1232/ _____% 1233-1235/ _____% 1236-1238/ 

b. Female _____% 1239-1241/ 

_____% 1242-1244/ _____% 1245-1247/ _____% 1248-1250/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 1251-1253/ 

_____% 1254-1256/ _____% 1257-1259/ _____% 1260-1262/ 

Special needs (%) 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 1263-1265/ _____% 1266-1268/ _____% 1269-1271/ _____% 1272-1274/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-35 

 

These questions ask about your entire Magnet School program. 

6. Which students are eligible to participate in a Magnet School? (Check all that apply.)

ρ 1 All students 1275/

ρ 2 Students in certain grades 1276/

ρ 3 Students interested in particular subject areas 1277/ 

ρ 4 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 1278/ 

ρ 5 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 1279/ 

ρ 6 Students who have completed pre-requisite courses 1280/ 

ρ 7 Students participate on a voluntary basis 1281/ 

ρ 8 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1282/ 

 1283-1284/ 

7. How are students selected to participate in the Magnet Schools that have been implemented 

at your school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All students participate 1285/ 

ρ 2 All students in certain grades participate 1286/ 

ρ 3 Students self-select 1287/ 

ρ 4 Random assignment 1288/ 

ρ 5 Most qualified are selected 1289/ 

ρ 6 Academic need 1290/ 

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1291/ 

 1292-1293/ 

8. Does your school’s Magnet School program have its own: (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Budget 1294/ 

ρ 2 Staff 1295/ 

ρ 3 Instructional leadership teams 1296/

ρ 4 Operating procedures 1297/ 

ρ 5 Discipline policies 1298/ 

9. Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Magnet School program at 

your school? 

ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to question 10) 1299/

ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer 9a) 

ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer 9a) 

9a. If the Magnet School program has a separate physical space in the school campus, 

what percent of time, on average, do students spend in the Magnet School area in a 

school day? 

_____ % 1300-1302/
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-36 

 

10. During the 2001-2002 school year, do teachers have common planning time for Magnet 

School program activities? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 10a) 1303/

ρ 2 No (Skip to question 11) 

10a. If yes, about how often have teachers in your school participated in common 

planning related to the Magnet School program? 

ρ 1 Less than once a month 1304/

ρ 2 About once a month 

ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

ρ 4 Weekly 

ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

ρ 6 Daily 

11. How were teachers assigned to or within the Magnet School program? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 All teachers have been assigned to the Magnet School program 1305/

ρ 2 Teachers volunteered 1306/

ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 1307/

ρ 4 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 1308/

ρ 5 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 1309/

ρ 6 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 1310/

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1311/

 1312-1313/ 

12. In the 2001-2002 school year, do students enrolled in each Magnet School take all of their 

courses within their own Magnet School? 

ρ 1 Yes (Skip to question 13) 1314/

ρ 2 No (Answer question 12a) 

12a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, is taken within the Magnet 

School? 

_____ % 1315-1317/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-37 

 

13. What kinds of assessments are utilized in the Magnet School program? Are any of these 

new since federal SLC funding was received? (Check all that apply.) 

Utilized?

New 

since 

SLC 

funding?

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

1318/ 

ο 2

1319/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

1320/ 

ο 2

1321/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, 

student exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

1322/ 

ο 2

1323/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1

1324/ 

ο 2

1325/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1

1326/ 

ο 2

1327/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________________ 1328-1329/

ο 1

1330/ 

ο 2

1331/ 

14. For each of the following, at which level are decisions made? (Check one per row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

only 

a. Magnet School 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1332/ 

b. Selection of 

Magnet School 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1333/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1334/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1335/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

Magnet School 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1336/ 
 

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-38 

 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

only 

f. Magnet School 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1337/ 

g. Magnet School 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1338/ 

h. Overall Magnet 

School budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1339/ 

i. Allocations within 

Magnet School 

budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1340/ 

j. Hiring for Magnet 

School positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1341/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next module you are to complete (as indicated 

by the check box list on the cover of the survey) or to the remaining questions that appear on the 

white pages at the back of the survey. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-39 

Other SLC Strategies Module Which of these other SLC strategies are being implemented in your school? (First fill out Column A. Then for each strategy check

Columns B-E.) 

 FOR EACH STRATEGY CHECKED I

COLUMNS B

Strategies: 

A 

Are you 

implementing 

this strategy? 

(Check all 

that apply.) 

B 

Beginning 

date of 

implementation 

(mm/yyyy) 

C 

Is this strategy new as a 

result of the 

federal SLC 

program? 

D 

Is this strategy 

funded, either 

wholly or in par

by a federal SL

grant? 

Block Scheduling (Class time is extended from 45- or 50-minute periods to blocks of 80 to 90 minutes. The added time allows teachers to provide individual attention and work together in an interdisciplinary fashion, and permits a greater variety of learning activities.) 

ρ 1

1342/

__ __ / __ 

__ __ __ 

1343-1348/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No 

1349/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

13

Career Clusters/Pathways/Majors (These are broad areas that address all careers within the area, from technical through professional. Career clusters identify academic and technical skills needed by students as they transition from high school to post-secondary education and/or employment.) 

ρ 1

1363/

__ __ / __ 

__ __ __ 

1364-1369/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

1370/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

13

Adult Advocates/Mentors (This model of personalization ensures that each student is known well by at least one staff member. Teachers, counselors, other school staff, and community volunteers – all of whom must be trained – can fulfill this “caring adult” role. Adult advocates meet with 15 to 20 students individually or in small groups on a regular basis over several years, providing support, and academic and personal guidance.)

ρ 1

1384/

__ __ / __ 

__ __ __ 

1385-1390/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

1391/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

13

Teacher Advisory Programs (This model of personalization changes the homeroom period to a teacher advisory period. Typically, administrators and teachers are assigned to a small number of students for whom they remain responsible over three or four years of high school.) 

ρ 1

1405/

__ __ / __ 

__ __ __ 

1406-1411/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

1412/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

14

Teacher Teams (Academic teaming organizes groups of teachers across departments so that teachers share the same students rather than the same subject. Teachers who teach different subjects form a team that shares responsibility for curriculum, instruction, evaluation and discipline for a group of 100 to 150 students.) 

ρ 1

1426/

__ __ / __ 

__ __ __ 

1427-1432/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

1433/

ρ 1 Yes 

ρ 2 No

14

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the remaining questions that appear on the white pages at the back of the 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-40

The remainder of the survey addresses your school’s overall experience in implementing activities 

to foster an SLC environment. Please base all answers on your SLC efforts in the whole school 

rather than on a separate SLC component (e.g., Career Academy program). For the rest of the 

survey, “SLC” means not only the SLC initiatives that have begun since receipt of federal SLC 

funding, but also any other programs in your school that are also designed to personalize the 

institution by establishing SLCs. 

B. SLC Implementation in Your School 

1. How influential were the following factors in your decision to implement an SLC program? 

(Check one per row.) 

No 

influence 

Some 

influence 

Major 

influence 

Don’t 

know 

a. State-initiated school reform ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1447/ 

b. District-initiated school 

reform 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1448/ 

c. Need for better student 

preparation for mandated 

assessments 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1449/ 

d. Teacher support ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1450/ 

e. Local employer interest ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1451/ 

f. City or town government 

interest 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1452/ 

g. Other (Please specify): 

______ 1453-1454/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1455/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-41

2. What influence has each of the following factors had on your school’s implementation of the SLC 

program to date? (Check one per row.)

Negative 

influence 

No 

influence 

Positive 

influence 

Don’t 

know 

Structure/Resource factors 

a. State/District standard(s) or 

curriculum requirements 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1456/ 

b. Physical space/facilities, capacity 

to operate an SLC program 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1457/ 

c. Departmental organization of the 

school 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1458/ 

d. Scheduling/Logistics issues about 

the operation of an SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1459/ 

e. Resources, including instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1460/ 

f. Adequacy of curriculum ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1461/ 

g. Time for common teacher 

planning 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1462/ 

h. Other (Please specify): 

___________________________ 1463-1464/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1465/ 

Instructional staff factors 

a. District hiring policies ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1466/ 

b. Faculty expertise ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1467/ 

c. Pedagogical practices of existing 

staff 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1468/ 

d. Availability of professional 

development specific to the 

facilitation of the SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1469// 

e. Teacher attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1470/ 

f. Teachers’ union attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1471/ 

g. Other (Please specify): 

___________________________ 1472-1473/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1474/ 

Student/Parent factors 

a. Characteristics of student 

population 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1475/ 

b. Parental/Family attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1476/ 

c. Other (Please specify): 

___________________________ 1477-1478/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1479/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-42

3. For the 2001-2002 school year, does your school have external sources of funding (e.g., grants, 

donations) from sources other than the federal SLC program that are used to support the goals of 

the SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 3a and 3b) 1480/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Section C) 

 3a. If yes, please indicate which of the following sources of funding your school currently has. 

(Check all that apply.)

 ρ 1 Federal (e.g., Title I, Perkins) 1481/ 

ρ 2 State 1482/

ρ 3 Local 1483/

ρ 4 Private (e.g., philanthropic, non-profit, for-profit, foundation) 1484/

ρ 5 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1485/ 

 1486-1487/

 3b. For the types of funding sources identified above, please indicate below the name of the 

funding source (column A), the annual amount of the funding (column B), the duration of the 

funding in months (column C), and the total funding amount (column D). Round all dollar 

amounts to whole numbers. 

A. B. C. D. 

Name of funding source 

Amount of 

funding per 

year 

Duration of 

funding 

(months) 

Total funding 

amount 

Example: Comprehensive School Reform 

Demonstration 

$25,000 24 $50,000 

____________________________ 1488-1489/

____________________________

$____________ 1490-1496/  ___________ 1497-1498/ $___________ 1499-1505/ 

____________________________ 1506-1507/

____________________________

$___________ 1508-1514/  ___________ 1515-1516/ $___________ 1517-1523/ 

____________________________ 1524-1525/

____________________________

$___________ 1526-1532/  ___________ 1533-1534/ $___________ 1535-1541/ 

____________________________ 1542-1543/

____________________________

$___________ 1544-1550/  ___________ 1551-1552/ $___________ 1553-1559/ 

____________________________ 1560-1561/

____________________________

$___________ 1562-1568/  ___________ 1569-1570/ $___________ 1571-1577/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-43

C. Faculty/Staff Information 

1. What percentage of instructional staff are involved in the SLC program? 

_____% 1578-1580/

2. During the 2001-2002 school year (including summer 2001), on average, what was the 

number of hours of professional development specific to the SLC program that each of 

your teachers received? 

_____ hours per teacher 1581-1584/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-44

3. What professional development opportunities were available during the 2001-2002 school 

year (including summer 2001) to staff who participate in the SLC program? Please 

indicate the percentage of SLC teachers who participated in each professional development 

opportunity listed below. (Please check one per row.)

 0-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% 

Not 

available 

Pedagogical techniques 

a. Cooperative learning 

techniques 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1585/ 

b. Tailoring instruction to 

individual needs 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1586/ 

c. Problem solving/reasoning 

instructional methods 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1587/ 

d. Project-based instruction ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1588/ 

e. Team-teaching methods ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1589/ 

f. New approaches to student 

assessment 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1590/ 

g. Other (Please specify): 

___________________ 1591-1592/ 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1593/ 

Content 

a. Subject matter content 

(Please specify): 

___________________ 1594-1595/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1596/ 

b. Adoption of SLC-specific 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1597/ 

c. Interdisciplinary projects ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1598/ 

d. Other (Please specify): 

___________________ 1599-1600/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1601/ 

Student supports 

a. Mentoring strategies ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1602/ 

b. Conflict resolution ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1603/ 

c. Strategies for helping lowachieving students 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1604/ 

d. Other (Please specify): 

___________________ 1605-1606/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1607/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-45

4. In the first three columns, please indicate the extent to which your school has staffing needs 

in each of the following areas. In the second three columns, indicate whether your school’s 

staffing needs have changed as a result of implementing an SLC program. 

 School staffing needs Change because of SLC program 

 Staffing 

area: 

No 

need 

Some 

need 

Great 

need Decreased Unchanged Increased 

a. Guidance 

counselors 

and/or other 

professional 

support staff 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1608/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1609/ 

b. Core academic 

subject 

teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1610/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1611/ 

c. Elective 

academic 

subject 

teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1612/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1613/ 

d. Vocational 

subject 

teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1614/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1615/ 

e. Special 

education 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1616/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1617/ 

f. Bilingual 

education 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1618/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1619/ 

g. Other 

(Please 

specify): 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

1622/ 

ο 4 ο 5 ο 6

1623/ 

___________________________________ 1620-1621/  
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-46

D. Student-Staff Relationships 

1. Within the SLC program, do students have adult mentors with whom they are formally paired? 

ρ 1 Yes, there is a formal pairing process (Answer question 1a) 1624

ρ 2 No, there is no formal pairing program, although informal mentoring may take 

place (Skip to Section E) 

 1a. Who are your students’ mentors? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Teachers 1625/ 

ρ 2 Administrators 1626/ 

ρ 3 Athletic coaches/Activity leaders 1627/ 

ρ 4 Guidance counselors 1628/ 

ρ 5 Other school staff 1629/ 

ρ 6 Adults from outside the school (e.g., local employers, community 

 

 members) (Please specify): _______________________________ 1630/

 1631-1632/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-47

E. Academic and Non-Academic Aspects of the SLC/School 

1. Have course offerings in your school changed since you began implementing your SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer questions 1a and 1b) 1633/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to question 2) 

 1a. How has the number of course offerings in your school changed? (Check all that apply.) 

 Fewer 

Same 

number More 

Don’t 

know 

a. Academic courses ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

1634/ 

b. Career/Applied knowledge 

courses 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

1635/ 

c. Courses that integrate academic 

and vocational instruction 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

1636/ 

d. Courses specific to SLC theme ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

1637/ 

1b. What other changes have been made in school-wide course offerings, if any? 

(Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Greater variety within the same number of courses 1638/

ρ 2 Different teachers teaching existing courses 1639/ 

ρ 3 More sections within the existing number of courses 1640/ 

ρ 4 More homogeneous student groupings 1641/ 

ρ 5 More heterogeneous student groupings 1642/ 

2. During the 2001-2002 school year, which of the following opportunities were available 

solely to students in your SLC program (column A), and which opportunities were 

available to students schoolwide (column B)? (Check all that apply.) 

A 

SLC only 

B 

Schoolwide 

a. Job shadowing ο 1

1643/ 

ο 2

1644/ 

b. Internships ο 1

1645/ 

ο 2

1646/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1

1647/ 

ο 2

1648/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1

1649/ 

ο 2

1650/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1

1651/ 

ο 2

1652/ 

f. None of the above ο 1

1653/ 

ο 2

1654/ 

j. Other (Please specify): _________________ 1655-1656/. 

ο 1

1657/ 

ο 2

1658/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-48

3. What kinds of assessment are used throughout your whole school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Standardized assessments: state-mandated 1659/

ρ 2 Standardized assessments: district-mandated 1660/

ρ 3 Portfolios 1661/

ρ 4 Performance-based assessment, including exhibition 1662/

ρ 5 Student self-assessment 1663/

ρ 6 End-of-course assessment 1664/

ρ 7 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1665/

 1666-1667/ 

4. Which of the following are required for graduation within the SLC program (column A) 

and schoolwide (column B)? (Check all that apply.)

A 

Required 

within the 

SLC 

B 

Required 

schoolwide 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1

1668/ ο 21669/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1

1670/ ο 21671/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1

1672/ ο 21673/ 

d. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in academic areas) 

ο 1

1674/ ο 21675/ 

e. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set 

number of required courses in career/vocational 

areas) 

ο 1

1676/ ο 21677/ 

f. Overall number of course credits with passing 

grades 

ο 1

1678/ ο 21679/ 

g. Student self-assessment ο 1

1680/ ο 21681/ 

h. Co-op or credit for work ο 1

1682/ ο 21683/ 

i. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1

1684/ ο 21685/ 

j. Other (Please specify): 

______________________________________ 1686-1687/ 

ο 1

1688/ 

ο 2

1689/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-49

5. How have parents/families been involved with your SLC program and/or your school? Please 

indicate if this involvement has been specific to the SLC program (column A) or to the whole 

school (column B). (Check all that apply.)

A 

Specific 

to SLC 

program 

B 

Schoolwide 

a. No formal parental/family input ο 1

1690/ ο 21691/ 

b. Attend student-centered events ο 1

1692/ ο 21693/ 

c. Provide permission for child’s assignments ο 1

1694/ ο 21695/ 

d. Work with school personnel to devise students’ 

course enrollment plans 

ο 1

1696/ ο 21697/ 

e. Serve as mentors ο 1

1698/ ο 21699/ 

f. Serve as in-school volunteers (e.g., classroom- or 

school-level volunteers) 

ο 1

1700/ ο 21701/ 

g. Participate in school governance (e.g., membership 

in site council or school improvement team) 

ο 1

1702/ ο 21703/ 

h. Participate in parent-teacher 

organization/association (e.g., PTA) 

ο 1

1704/ ο 21705/ 

i. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________________ 1706-1707/ 

ο 1

1708/ ο 21709/ 

6. Do you have external partners, such as local business or universities, that work exclusively with 

your SLC program? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 6a) 1710/ 

ρ 2 No (Go to Section F) 

 6a. Who are your external partners? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 Higher education institutions 1711/ 

ρ 2 Businesses/Local employers 1712/ 

ρ 3 Community-based organizations 1713/ 

ρ 4 Individual community members 1714/ 

ρ 5 Other (Please specify): ____________________________________ 1715/

1716-1717/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-50

F. Effects of the SLC 

1. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s SLC 

program has had on each of the following outcomes so far? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1718/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1719/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1720/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1721/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1722/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1723/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1724/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1725/ 

i. Other (Please specify): 

______________________ 1726-1727/ 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1728/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1729/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1730/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1731/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1732/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1733/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1734/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1735/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1736/ 

i. Other (Please specify): 

______________________ 1737-1738/ 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1739/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1740/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1741/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1742/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1743/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1744/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________ 1745-1746/ 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1747/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-51

II. Background Information About You and Your 

School 

1. How long have you been a principal? 

_____ years 1748-1749/

2. How long have you been a principal at this school? 

_____ years 1750-1751/

3. Is your school currently implementing reform efforts in any of the following areas? (Check 

all that apply.) For those checked, please provide the date started. Are the reforms stateor district-mandated, or are they voluntary? Are they coordinated with your SLC program? 

 

FOR EACH REFORM CHECKED IN COLUMN A, 

PLEASE COMPLETE COLUMNS B-F 

Type of reform 

A 

Implementing 

this 

reform 

B 

Date 

started 

(mm/yyyy) 

C 

Statemandated 

D 

Districtmandated 

E 

Voluntary 

participation 

F 

Coordinated 

with SLC 

(e.g., common 

design and 

implementation) 

a. Curriculum reforms ο 1

1752/ 

________/_______

1753-1758/ 

ο 2

1759/ 

ο 3

1760/ 

ο 4

1761/ 

ο 5

1762/ 

b. Standards-based 

reforms 

ο 1

1763/ 

________/_______

1764-1769/ 

ο 2

1770/ 

ο 3

1771/ 

ο 4

1772/ 

ο 5

1773/ 

c. Discipline and 

safety reforms 

ο 1

1774/ 

________/_______

1775-1780/ 

ο 2

1781/ 

ο 3

1782/ 

ο 4

1783/ 

ο 5

1784/ 

d. School climate 

reforms 

ο 1

1785/ 

________/_______

1786-1791/ 

ο 2

1792/ 

ο 3

1793/ 

ο 4

1794/ 

ο 5

1795/ 

e. Comprehensive high 

school reform model 

(e.g., High Schools 

That Work, 

Coalition of 

Essential Schools, 

Talent Development 

High School) 

ο 1

1796/ 

________/_______

1797-1802/ 

ο 2

1803/ 

ο 3

1804/ 

ο 4

1805/ 

ο 5

1806/ 

f. Other (Please 

specify): 

________________ 1807-1808/ 

ο 1

1809/ 

________/_______

1810-1815/ 

ο 2

1816/ 

ο 3

1817/ 

ο 4

1818/ 

ο 5

1819/ 

g. None of the above ο 1

1820/ 

 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-52

4. During the 2001-2002 school year, which of the following statements describe your 

school? (Check all that apply.) 

ρ 1 The school is organized into subject-based departments such as 

Mathematics, History, Fine Arts, and Technical Arts (e.g., woodworking) 1821/

ρ 2 The school is organized in departments according to career pathways (e.g., 

photojournalism, technology, early childhood development) 1822/

ρ 3 Courses in at least some core academic areas (English, math, science, social 

studies) are differentiated (i.e., “tracked” or “leveled”) 1823/

ρ 4 Advanced placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or Cambridge 

Program (O and A levels) courses are available. 1824/

5. Do you have external partners, such as local businesses or universities, that work with your 

whole school? 

ρ 1 Yes (Answer question 6) 1825/

ρ 2 No (END — Thank you for your time! If you have any comments or 

 want to describe your SLC program activities more completely, please 

 write below or on the back of this page.) 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-53

6. For each of the following, please indicate which benefits were provided by your school 

through partnership(s) with external entities this year? (Check all that apply.) 

Higher 

education 

institutions 

Businesses/ 

Local 

employers 

Communitybased 

organizations 

Individual 

community 

members 

Other 

(Please 

specify): 

_______

1826-1827

a. Provide school-towork experiences 

(e.g., workplace 

visits, internships, job 

opportunities) 

ο 1 

1828/

ο 2 

1829/

ο 3 

1830/

ο 4 

1831/

ο 8 

1832/

b. Serve as mentors or 

career advisors 

ο 1 

1833/

ο 2 

1834/

ο 3 

1835/

ο 4 

1836/

ο 8 

1837/

c. Serve as in-school 

volunteers (e.g., 

classroom volunteers, 

schoolwide 

volunteers) 

ο 1 

1838/

ο 2 

1839/

ο 3 

1840/

ο 4 

1841/

ο 8 

1842/

d. Participate in school 

governance (e.g., 

membership in site 

council or school 

improvement) 

ο 1 

1843/

ο 2 

1844/

ο 3 

1845/

ο 4 

1846/

ο 8 

1847/

e. Interns and/or preservice (student) 

teachers 

ο 1 

1848/

ο 2 

1849/

ο 3 

1850/

ο 4 

1851/

ο 8 

1852/

f. Professional 

development (either 

on- or off-site) 

ο 1 

1853/

ο 2 

1854/

ο 3 

1855/

ο 4 

1856/

ο 8 

1857/

g. Financial assistance 

for students (e.g., 

stipends, scholarships) 

ο 1 

1858/

ο 2 

1859/

ο 3 

1860/

ο 4 

1861/

ο 8 

1862/

h. Donated equipment/ 

supplies, including 

curricular materials 

ο 1 

1863/

ο 2 

1864/

ο 3 

1865/

ο 4 

1866/

ο 8 

1867/

i. Donated facilities/ 

space 

ο 1 

1868/

ο 2 

1869/

ο 3 

1870/

ο 4 

1871/

ο 8 

1872/

j. Sponsor or participate in special events 

held at school (e.g., 

career days) 

ο 1 

1873/

ο 2 

1874/

ο 3 

1875/

ο 4 

1876/

ο 8 

1877/

k. Other (Please 

specify): 

ο 1 

1878/

ο 2 

1879/

ο 3 

1880/

ο 4 

1881/

ο 8 

1882/

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

1883-1884 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! If you have any comments or want to describe your SLC 

program activities more completely, please write on the back of this page.
Cohort 1 OMB No.: 1875-0217 

Expires: 03/31/2005 

ID: 1-5/ 

Batch: 6-8

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-54

Implementation Study of Smaller Learning 

Communities: Periodic Implementation Survey of 

Schools, 2003 

This survey is being conducted for the U.S. Department of Education as part of its effort to learn about the 

implementation of the federal Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) Program. The program represents a 

federal commitment to help school districts plan and implement both structures and strategies for creating 

smaller learning communities in high schools. 

All principals of high schools that have received funds from the SLC Program are being asked to complete 

this survey, so your response is very important to us. This survey updates and adds to information 

contained in the previous survey (spring 2002). We estimate that the survey will take about 55 minutes to 

complete. You may find it useful to consult additional members of your school staff when completing 

specific questions or for help with the entire survey. 

The survey has a number of separate sections on colored paper: 

Career Academies (lavender) 

Freshman Academies (yellow) 

House Plans (blue) 

Schools-within-a-School (pink) 

Magnet Schools (ivory) 

Other Strategies, including Block Scheduling, Career Clusters/Pathways, Adult Advocates/Mentors,Teacher 

Advisory Programs, and Teacher Teams (orange) 

We are interested in the SLC structures and/or strategies that you were implementing during the 2002`2003 

school year. These structures and strategies are defined on your instruction sheet and at the beginning of 

each section on colored paper. Please examine the definitions and then complete the section(s) that are 

appropriate for your school. All schools should complete the last section titled “Your School” (white 

pages). If you have any questions about the sections of the survey you should complete, or any survey 

content questions, please contact Elizabeth Umbro, toll-free, at (866) 366-8413. 

Please complete the following contact information to facilitate any necessary survey follow up. 

Mailing label here [Avery no. 5160, 1 x 2-5/8 will fit JUST BARELY] 

Please answer all the questions, and return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed prepaid 

FedEx envelope by November 10, 2003. All information that would permit identification of the individual 

respondent will be held in strict confidence, will be used only by persons engaged in and for the purposes of 

the survey, and will not be disclosed or released to others for any purpose, as required by law. 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such a collection 

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1875-0217. The time required to 

complete this information collection is estimated to average 55 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing 

data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the 

accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-

4651. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Planning and 

Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20202-4651.
Cohort 1 OMB No.: 1875-0217 

Expires: 03/31/2005 

ID: 1-5/ 

Batch: 6-8

Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-55

On the following pages are different modules of questions (each in a different color) that pertain to the 

SLC strategies employed by your school. Please complete all questions in each applicable module, being 

certain to follow the instructions that are provided. You may wish to have other staff assist you with this 

task. Please note that throughout the survey, “2002-2003” refers to the 2002-2003 school year. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-56

Career Academy Module 

Please complete this module only if you were implementing one or more Career Academies in 2002-2003. 

Career Academies are one type of school-within-a-school that organize curricula around one or more 

careers or occupations. They integrate academic and occupation-related classes. 

1. When did implementation of the first Career Academy begin? 

 __ / ____ 9-14/ 

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your Career Academy as of the 

end of the 2002-2003 school year. 

 _____ % 15-17/ 

3. In the 2002-2003 school year, did you use federal SLC grant funds to support your Career 

Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes 18/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. Is your implementation of Career Academies new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 5) 19/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 4a) 

 4a. Have you expanded previously existing Career Academies or added new ones as a result of 

the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 20/ 

 ρ 2 No 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-57

5. What percentage of the students at your school at each grade level participated in Career Academies 

in 2002-2003? 

 _____% of 9th graders 21-23/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 24-26/ 

 _____% of 11th graders 27-29/ 

 _____% of 12th graders 30-32/ 

The following question is about the different Career Academy groups in your school in 2002-2003. 

6. Below we ask you to describe each of your Career Academy groups. There is space to describe up 

to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest here and answer Question 6a. 

Complete section A with the names of your Career Academy groups. In section B, please estimate 

the number of students in each Career Academy group. In section C, please provide the 

demographic characteristics of students in each Career Academy. If exact percentages are not 

available, please estimate as well as you can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make 

sure that the percentages given within racial composition and gender add up to 100 percent in 

each case.

Characteristics of Career Academy Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name _________ 33-37 

_________ 38-42/ ________ 43-47/ ________ 48-52/ 

B. Student enrollment in 

2002-2003 

_____ 53-56/ 

_____ 57-60/ 

_____ 61-64/ 

_____ 65-68/ 

C. Demographic 

characteristics 

Racial composition (%) 

a. Non-white _____% 69-71/ 

_____% 72-74/ _____% 75-77/ _____% 78-80/ 

b. White _____% 81-83/ _____% 84-86/ _____% 87-89/ _____% 90-92/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 93-95/ 

_____% 96-98/ _____% 99-101/ _____% 102-104/ 

b. Female _____% 105-107/ _____% 108-110/ _____% 111-113/ _____% 114-116/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 117-119/ 

_____% 120-122/ _____% 123-125/ _____% 126-128/ 

Special needs/students with 

disabilities (%) 

 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 129-131/ 

_____% 132-134/ _____% 135-137/ _____% 138-140/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-58

6a. If you had more than four Career Academy groups in 2002-2003, indicate below the name(s) and 

total student enrollments in 2002-2003 for all Career Academy groups not listed above. 

 Name Total Student Enrollment

 __________________________ _______ 141-145/ 146-149/ 

 __________________________ _______ 150-154/ 155-158/ 

 __________________________ _______ 159-163/ 164-167/ 

These questions ask about all Career Academies in your school. 

7. In 2002-2003, were all students in grades 9-12 in the school eligible to participate in a Career 

Academy?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 8) 168/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 7a) 

 7a. Which students were eligible to participate in a Career Academy? (Check all that apply.) 

 ρ 1 Students in certain grades 169/

 ρ 2 Students interested in particular subject areas 170/

 ρ 3 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 171/

 ρ 4 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 172/

 ρ 5 Students who had completed pre-requisite courses 173/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 174/

175-189/ 

8. In 2002-2003, did all students in grades 9-12 participate in a Career Academy?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 9) 190/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 8a) 

 8a. How were students selected to participate in a Career Academy? (Check all that apply.)

 ρ 1 All students in certain grades participated 191/

 ρ 2 Students self-selected 192/

 ρ 3 Students were randomly assigned 193/

 ρ 4 The most qualified students were selected 194/

 ρ 5 Students with the greatest academic need were selected 195/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 186/

197-211/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-59

9. In 2002-2003, did your school’s Career Academy program have its own: (Check one in each row.) 

Yes No 

a. Budget ο 1 ο 2

212/ 

b. Staff ο 1 ο 2

213/ 

c. Instructional leadership teams ο 1 ο 2

214/ 

d. Operating procedures ο 1 ο 2

215/ 

e. Discipline policies ο 1 ο 2

216/ 

10. In 2002-2003, was there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Career Academy 

program at your school? 

 ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to Question 11) 217/

 ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer Question 10a) 

 ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer Question 10a) 

 10a. What percentage of time, on average, did students spend in the Career Academy area in a 

school day? 

 _____ % 218-220/

11. During the 2002-2003 school year, did teachers have common planning time for Career Academy 

program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 11a) 221/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 12) 

 11a. If yes, about how often did teachers in your school participate in common planning related to 

the Career Academy program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 222/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-60

12. During 2002-2003, were all teachers in the school assigned to teach within the Career Academy 

program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 13) 223/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 12a) 

 12a. How were teachers assigned? (Check all that apply) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 224/

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 225/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 226/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 227/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 228/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 229/

230-244/ 

13. In the 2002-2003 school year, did students enrolled in each Career Academy take all of their 

courses within their own Career Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 14) 245/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 13a) 

 13a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, was taken within the Career 

Academy? 

 _____ % 246-248/

14. In Column A, please indicate whether the following types of courses were offered in your Career 

Academy in 2002-2003. (Check one per row in Column A.) In Column B, please indicate whether 

the number of course offerings for students in the Career Academy has changed since SLC funding 

began. (Check one per row.) 

A 

Courses 

offered in 

2002-2003 

B 

Course offerings have 

changed since SLC 

funding began 

 Yes No Fewer 

No 

change More 

a. Career/Applied knowledge 

courses 

ο 1 ο 2

249/ 

ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

250/ 

b. Courses that integrate academic 

and vocational instruction 

ο 1 ο 2

251/ 

ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

252/ 

c. Courses specific to SLC theme ο 1 ο 2

253/ 

ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

254/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-61

15. In Column A, please indicate whether the following kinds of assessments were utilized in the 

 Career Academy program in 2002-2003. In Column B, please indicate whether any of these were 

 new since federal SLC funding was received. (Check one per row in Column A and one per row 

 in Column B for each assessment that was utilized.) 

A 

Utilized in 

2002-2003? 

B 

New since SLC 

funding? 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district 

mandated 

ο 1 ο 2

255/ 

ο 3 ο 4

256/ 

b. Standardized testing: statemandated 

ο 1 ο 2

257/ 

ο 3 ο 4

258/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., 

portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

259/ 

ο 3 ο 4

260/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

261/ 

ο 3 ο 4

262/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

263/ 

ο 3 ο 4

264/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_____________________________ 267-281/

ο 1 ο 2

265/ 

ο 3 ο 4

266/ 

16. Were any of the following required for graduation within the Career Academy in 2002-2003? 

(Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

282/ 

b. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

283/ 

c. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

284/ 

d. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

285/ 

e. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

286/ 

f. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

287/ 

g. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

288/ 

h. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________________________ 290-304/

ο 1 ο 2

289/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-62

17. During the 2002-2003 school year, were any of the following opportunities available solely to 

students in your Career Academy? (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

305/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

306/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

307/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

308/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

309/ 

f. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 311-325/

ο 1 ο 2

310/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-63

18. For each of the following, at which level were decisions made during 2002-2003? (Check one per 

row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

Career 

Academy 

decision 

only 

a. Career Academy 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

326/ 

b. Selection of Career 

Academy 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

327/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

328/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

329/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the Career 

Academy 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

330/ 

f. Career Academy 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

331/ 

g. Career Academy 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

332/ 

h. Overall Career 

Academy budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

333/ 

i. Allocations within 

Career Academy 

budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

334/ 

j. Hiring for Career 

Academy positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

335/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-64

19. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s Career 

Academy has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002-2003 school 

year? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

336/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 337/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

338/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 339/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 340/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 341/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 342/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 343/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 344/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

345/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 346/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 347/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 348/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 349/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

350/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 351/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

352/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

353/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

354/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

355/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

356/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next applicable module or to the remaining questions that 

appear on the white pages at the back of the survey, labeled “Your School”. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-65

Freshman Academy Module 

Please complete this module only if you were implementing one or more Freshman Academies in 2002-

2003. 

Freshman Academies, also called Ninth Grade Academies or Freshman Transition Activities, are designed 

to bridge middle and high school so that students may become accustomed to high school more easily. 

They also respond to the high ninth-grade dropout rate experienced by some high schools. 

1. When did implementation of the first Freshman Academy begin? 

 __ / ____ 357-362/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your Freshman Academy as of 

the end of the 2002-2003 school year. 

 _____ % 363-365/ 

3. In the 2002-2003 school year, did you use federal SLC grant funds to support your Freshman 

Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes 366/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. Is your implementation of Freshman Academies new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 5) 367/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 4a) 

 4a. Have you expanded previously existing Freshman Academies or added new ones as a result 

of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 368/ 

 ρ 2 No 

5. In 2002-2003, did all 9th grade students (including repeaters) participate in Freshman Academies? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 6) 369/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 5a) 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-66

 5a. Did all 9th grade students except repeaters participate in Freshman Academies?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 6) 370/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Questions 5b and 5c) 

 5b. Which students were eligible to participate in a Freshman Academy? (Check all that 

apply) 

 ρ 1 Students interested in particular subject areas 371/

 ρ 2 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 372/

 ρ 3 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 373/

 ρ 4 Students who had completed pre-requisite courses 374/

 ρ 5 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 375/

376-390/ 

 5c. How were students selected to participate in the Freshman Academies that have been 

implemented at your school?

 ρ 1 Students self-selected 391/

 ρ 2 Students were randomly assigned 392/

 ρ 3 The most qualified students were selected 393/

 ρ 4 Students with the greatest academic need were selected 394/

 ρ 5 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 395/

396-410/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-67

The following question is about the different Freshman Academy groups in your school in 2002-2003. 

6. Below we ask you to describe each of your Freshman Academy groups. There is space to describe 

up to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest here and answer Question 6a. 

Complete section A with the names of your Freshman Academy groups. In section B, please 

estimate the number of students in each Freshman Academy group. In section C, please provide the 

demographic characteristics of students in each Freshman Academy. If exact percentages are not 

available, please estimate as well as you can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make 

sure that the percentages given within racial composition and gender add up to 100 percent in 

each case.

Characteristics of Freshman Academy Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 411-415/ 

__________ 416-420/ _________ 421-425/ _________ 426-430/ 

B. Student enrollment in 2002-

2003 

_____ 431-434/ 

_____ 435-438/ 

_____ 439-442/ 

_____ 443-446/ 

C. Demographic characteristics 

Racial composition (%) 

a. Non-white _____% 447-449/ 

_____% 450-452/ _____% 453-455/ _____% 456-458/ 

b. White _____% 459-461/ _____% 462-464/ _____% 465-467/ _____% 468-470/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 471-473/ 

_____% 474-476/ _____% 477-479/ _____% 480-482/ 

b. Female _____% 483-485/ _____% 486-488/ _____% 489-491/ _____% 492-494/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 495-497/ 

_____% 498-500/ _____% 501-503/ _____% 504-506/ 

Special needs/students with 

disabilities (%) 

 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 507-509/ 

_____% 510-512/ _____% 513-515/ _____% 516-518/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-68

6a. If you had more than four Freshman Academy groups in 2002-2003, indicate below the 

name(s) and total student enrollments in 2002-2003 for all Freshman Academy groups not 

listed above. 

 Name Total Student Enrollment

 __________________________ _______ 519-523/ 524-527/ 

 __________________________ _______ 528-532/ 533-536/ 

 __________________________ _______ 537-541/ 542-545/ 

These questions ask about all Freshman Academies in your school. 

7 In 2002-2003, did your school’s Freshman Academy program have its own: (Check one in each 

row.) 

Yes No 

a. Budget ο 1 ο 2

546/ 

b. Staff ο 1 ο 2

547/ 

c. Instructional leadership teams ο 1 ο 2

548/ 

d. Operating procedures ο 1 ο 2

549/ 

e. Discipline policies ο 1 ο 2

550/ 

8. In 2002-2003, was there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Freshman Academy 

program at your school? 

 ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to Question 9) 551/

 ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer Question 8a) 

 ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer Question 8a) 

 8a. What percentage of time, on average, did students spend in the Freshman Academy area in 

a school day? 

 _____ % 552-554/

9. During the 2002-2003 school year, did teachers have common planning time for Freshman 

Academy program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 9a) 555/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 10) 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-69

 9a. If yes, about how often did teachers in your school participate in common planning related to 

the Freshman Academy program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 556/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 

10. During 2002-2003, were all teachers in the school assigned to teach within the Freshman Academy 

program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 11) 557/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 10a) 

 10a. How were teachers assigned? (Check all that apply) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 558/

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 559/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 560/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 561/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 562/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 563/

564-578/ 

11. In the 2002-2003 school year, did students enrolled in each Freshman Academy take all of their 

courses within their own Freshman Academy? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 12) 579/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 11a) 

 11a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, was taken within the Freshman 

Academy? 

 _____ % 580-582/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-70

12. Were courses specific to the SLC theme offered in your Freshman Academy in 2002-2003? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 12a) 583/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 13) 

 12a. How has the number of course offerings specific to the SLC theme changed since SLC 

funding began? (Check one) 

 ρ 1 Fewer courses offered 584/

 ρ 2 No change in course offerings 585/

 ρ 3 More courses offered 586/

13. In Column A, please indicate whether the following kinds of assessments were utilized in the 

Freshman Academy program in 2002-2003. In Column B, please indicate whether any of these 

were new since federal SLC funding was received. (Check one per row in Column A and one per 

row in Column B for each assessment that was utilized.) 

A 

Utilized in 2002-

2003? 

B 

New since SLC 

funding? 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1 ο 2

587/ ο 3 ο 4588/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

589/ ο 3 ο 4590/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., 

portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

591/ ο 3 ο 4592/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

593/ ο 3 ο 4594/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

595/ ο 3 ο 4596/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________ 599-613/

ο 1 ο 2

597/ 

ο 3 ο 4

598/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-71

14. Were any of the following required for graduation within the Freshman Academy in 2002-2003? 

(Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

614/ 

b. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

615/ 

c. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

616/ 

d. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

617/ 

e. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

618/ 

f. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

619/ 

g. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

620/ 

h. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 622-636/

ο 1 ο 2

621/ 

15. During the 2002-2003 school year, were any of the following opportunities available solely to 

students in your Freshman Academy? (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

637/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

638/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

639/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

640/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

641/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

_________________________________ 643-657/

ο 1 ο 2 642/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-72

16. For each of the following, at which level were decisions made during 2002-2003? (Check one per 

row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

Freshman 

Academy 

decision 

only 

a. Freshman Academy 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

658/ 

b. Selection of 

Freshman Academy 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

659/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

660/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

661/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

Freshman Academy 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

662/ 

f. Freshman Academy 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

663/ 

g. Freshman Academy 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

664/ 

h. Overall Freshman 

Academy budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

665/ 

i. Allocations within 

Freshman Academy 

budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

666/ 

j. Hiring for Freshman 

Academy positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

667/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-73

17. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s Freshman 

Academy has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002-2003 school 

year? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

668/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 669/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

670/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 671/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 672/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 673/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 674/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 675/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 676/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

677/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 678/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 679/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 680/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 681/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

682/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 683/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

684/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

685/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

686/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

687/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

688/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next applicable module or to the remaining questions that 

appear on the white pages at the back of the survey, labeled “Your School”. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-74

House Plan Module 

Please complete this module only if you were implementing one or more House Plans in 2003-2003. 

House Plans are comprised of students assembled across grades and assigned to groups of a few hundred 

each. Each House has its own disciplinary policy, student activity program, student government, and social 

activities. Students take some or all courses with their House members and from their House teachers. 

1. When did implementation of the first House Plan begin? 

 __ / ____ 689-694/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your House Plan as of the end of 

the 2002-2003 school year. 

 _____ % 695-697/ 

3. In the 2002-2003 school year, did you use federal SLC grant funds to support your House Plan? 

 ρ 1 Yes 698/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. Is your implementation of House Plans new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 5) 699/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 4a) 

 4a. Have you expanded previously existing House Plans or added new ones as a result of the 

federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 700/ 

 ρ 2 No 

5. In the 2002-2003 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade level 

participated in House Plans? 

 _____% of 9th graders 701-703/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 704-706/

 _____% of 11th graders 707-709/

 _____% of 12th graders 710-712/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-75

The following question is about the different House Plan groups in your school in 2002-2003. 

6. Below we ask you to describe each of your House Plan groups. There is space to describe up to 

four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest here and answer Question 6a. 

Complete section A with the names of your House Plan groups. In section B, please estimate the 

number of students in each House Plan group. In section C, please provide the demographic 

characteristics of students in each House Plan. If exact percentages are not available, please 

estimate as well as you can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make sure that the 

percentages given within racial composition and gender add up to 100 percent in each case.

Characteristics of House Plan Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 713-717/ 

__________ 718-722/ _________ 723-727/ _________ 728-732/ 

B. Student enrollment in 2002-

2003 

_____ 733-736/ 

_____ 737-740/ 

_____ 741-744/ 

_____ 745-748/ 

C. Demographic characteristics 

Racial composition (%) 

a. Non-white _____% 749-751/ 

_____% 752-754/ _____% 755-757/ _____% 758-760/ 

b. White _____% 761-763/ _____% 764-766/ _____% 767-769/ _____% 770-772/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 773-775/ 

_____% 776-778/ _____% 779-781/ _____% 782-784/ 

b. Female _____% 785-787/ _____% 788-790/ _____% 791-793/ _____% 794-796/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 797-799/ 

_____% 800-802/ _____% 803-805/ _____% 806-808/ 

Special needs/students with 

disabilities (%) 

 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 809-811/ 

_____% 812-814/ _____% 815-817/ _____% 818-820/ 

6a. If you had more than four House Plan groups in 2002-2003, indicate below the name(s) and total 

student enrollments in 2002-2003 for all House Plan groups not listed above. 

 Name Total Student Enrollment

 __________________________ _______ 821-825/ 826-829/ 

 __________________________ _______ 830-834/ 835-838/ 

 __________________________ _______ 839-843/ 844-847/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-76

These questions ask about all House Plans in your school. 

7. In 2002-2003, were all students in grades 9-12 in the school eligible to participate in the House 

Plan program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 8) 848/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 7a) 

 7a. Which students were eligible to participate in the House Plan program? (Check all that 

apply.) 

 ρ 1 Students in certain grades 849/

 ρ 2 Students interested in particular subject areas 850/

 ρ 3 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 851/

 ρ 4 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 852/

 ρ 5 Students who had completed pre-requisite courses 853/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 854/

855-869/ 

8. In 2002-2003, did all students in grades 9-12 participate in the House Plan program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 9) 870/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 8a) 

 8a. How were students selected to participate in the House Plan program? (Check all that 

apply.)

 ρ 1 All students in certain grades participated 871/

 ρ 2 Students self-selected 872/

 ρ 3 Students were randomly assigned 873/

 ρ 4 The most qualified students were selected 874/

 ρ 5 Students with the greatest academic need were selected 875/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 876/

877-891/ 

9. In 2002-2003, did your school’s House Plan program have its own: (Check one in each row.) 

Yes No 

a. Budget ο 1 ο 2

892/ 

b. Staff ο 1 ο 2

893/ 

c. Instructional leadership teams ο 1 ο 2

894/ 

d. Operating procedures ο 1 ο 2

895/ 

e. Discipline policies ο 1 ο 2

896/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-77

10. In 2002-2003, was there a separate physical space set aside for students in the House Plan program 

at your school? 

 ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to Question 11) 897/

 ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer Question 10a) 

 ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer Question 10a) 

 10a. What percentage of time, on average, did students spend in the House Plan area in a school 

day? 

 _____ % 898-900/

11. During the 2002-2003 school year, did teachers have common planning time for House Plan 

program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 11a) 901/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 12) 

 11a. If yes, about how often did teachers in your school participate in common planning related to 

the House Plan program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 902/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 

12. During 2002-2003, were all teachers in the school assigned to teach within the House Plan 

program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 13) 903/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 12a) 

 12a. How were teachers assigned? (Check all that apply) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 904/

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 905/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 906/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 907/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 908/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 909/

910-924/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-78

13. In the 2002-2003 school year, did students enrolled in each House Plan take all of their courses 

within their own House Plan? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 14) 925/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 13a) 

 13a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, was taken within the House Plan? 

 _____ % 926-928/

14. Were courses specific to the SLC theme offered in your House Plan program in 2002-2003? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 14a) 929/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 15) 

 14a. How has the number of course offerings specific to the SLC theme changed since SLC 

funding began? (Check one)

 ρ 1 Fewer courses offered 930/

 ρ 2 No change in course offerings 931/

 ρ 3 More courses offered 932/

15. In Column A, please indicate whether the following kinds of assessments were utilized in the 

House Plan program in 2002-2003. In Column B, please indicate whether any of these were new 

since federal SLC funding was received. (Check one per row in Column A and one per row in 

Column B for each assessment that was utilized.) 

A 

Utilized in 2002-

2003? 

B 

New since SLC 

funding? 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1 ο 2

933/ ο 3 ο 4934/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

935/ ο 3 ο 4936/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., 

portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

937/ ο 3 ο 4938/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

939/ ο 3 ο 4940/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

941/ ο 3 ο 4942/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________ 945-959/

ο 1 ο 2

943/ 

ο 3 ο 4

944/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-79

16. Were any of the following required for graduation within the House Plan in 2002-2003? 

(Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

960/ 

b. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

961/ 

c. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

962/ 

d. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

963/ 

e. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

964/ 

f. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

965/ 

g. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

966/ 

h. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 

 968-982/

ο 1 ο 2

967/ 

17. During the 2002-2003 school year, were any of the following opportunities available solely to 

students in your House Plan? (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

983/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

984/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

985/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

986/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

987/ 

f. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 989-1003/

ο 1 ο 2 988/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-80

18. For each of the following, at which level were decisions made during 2002-2003? (Check one per 

row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

House 

Plan 

decision 

House 

Plan 

decision 

only 

a. House Plan course 

offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1004/ 

b. Selection of House 

Plan instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1005/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1006/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1007/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the House 

Plan 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1008/ 

f. House Plan schedule 

(e.g., daily timetable 

weekly schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1009/ 

g. House Plan 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1010/ 

h. Overall House Plan 

budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1011/ 

i. Allocations within 

House Plan budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1012/ 

j. Hiring for House 

Plan positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1013/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-81

19. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s House Plan 

has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002-2003 school year? 

(Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1014/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1015/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1016/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1017/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1018/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1019/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1020/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1021/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1022/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1023/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1024/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1025/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1026/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1027/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1028/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1029/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1030/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1031/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1032/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1033/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1034/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next applicable module or to the remaining questions that 

appear on the white pages at the back of the survey, labeled “Your School”. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-82

School-within-a-School Module 

Please complete this module only if you were implementing one or more Schools-within-a-School in 2003-

2003. 

Schools-within-a-School break large schools into individual schools. Individual schools are multi-age and 

may be organized around a theme; they are separate and autonomous units with their own personnel, 

budgets, and programs. Schools-within-a-School operate within a larger school, sharing resources and 

facilities. Students and faculty affiliate with one School-within-a-School. 

1. When did implementation of the first School-within-a-School begin? 

 __ / ____ 1035-1040/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your School(s)-within-a-School 

as of the end of the 2002-2003 school year. 

 _____ % 1041-1043/ 

3. In the 2002-2003 school year, did you use federal SLC grant funds to support your School(s)-

within-a-School? 

 ρ 1 Yes 1044/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. Is your implementation of School(s)-within-a-School new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 5) 1045/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 4a) 

 4a. Have you expanded previously existing Schools-within-a-School or added new ones as a 

result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 1046/ 

 ρ 2 No 

5. In the 2002-2003 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade level 

participated in Schools-within-a-School? 

 _____% of 9th graders 1047-1049/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 1050-1052/

 _____% of 11th graders 1053-1055/

 _____% of 12th graders 1056-1058/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-83

The following question is about the different School-within-a-School groups in your school in 2002-2003. 

6. Below we ask you to describe each of your School-within-a-School groups. There is space to 

describe up to four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest here and answer 

Question 6a. Complete section A with the names of your School-within-a-School groups. In 

section B, please estimate the number of students in each School-within-a-School group. In section 

C, please provide the demographic characteristics of students in each School-within-a-School. If 

exact percentages are not available, please estimate as well as you can, giving a single number and 

not a range. Please make sure that the percentages given within racial composition and gender 

add up to 100 percent in each case.

Characteristics of School-within-a-School Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 1059-1063 

__________ 1064-1068/ _________ 1069-1073/ _________ 1074-1078/ 

B. Student enrollment in 2002-

2003 

_____ 1079-1082/ 

_____ 1083-1086/ 

_____ 1087-1090/ 

_____ 1091-1094/ 

C. Demographic characteristics 

Racial composition (%) 

a. Non-white _____% 1095-1097/ 

_____% 1098-1100/ _____% 1101-1103/ _____% 1104-1106/ 

b. White _____% 1107-1109/ _____% 1110-1112/ _____% 1113-1115/ _____% 1116-1118/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 1119-1121/ 

_____% 1122-1124/ _____% 1125-1127/ _____% 1128-1130/ 

b. Female _____% 1131-1133/ _____% 1134-1136/ _____% 1137-1139/ _____% 1140-1142/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 1143-1145/ 

_____% 1146-1148/ _____% 1149-1151/ _____% 1152-1154/ 

Special needs/students with 

disabilities (%) 

 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 1155-1157/ 

_____% 1158-1160/ _____% 1161-1163/ _____% 1164-1166/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-84

6a. If you had more than four School-within-a-School groups in 2002-2003, indicate below the name(s) 

and total student enrollments in 2002-2003 for all School-within-a-School groups not listed 

above. 

 Name Total Student Enrollment

 __________________________ _______ 1167-1171/ 1172-1175/ 

 __________________________ _______ 1176-1180/ 1181-1184/ 

 __________________________ _______ 1185-1189/ 1190-1193/ 

These questions ask about all Schools-within-a-School in your school. 

7. In 2002-2003, were all students in grades 9-12 in the school eligible to participate in the Schoolwithin-a-School program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 8) 1194/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 7a) 

 7a. Which students were eligible to participate in the School-within-a-School program? 

(Check all that apply.) 

 ρ 1 Students in certain grades 1195/

 ρ 2 Students interested in particular subject areas 1196/

 ρ 3 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 1197/

 ρ 4 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 1198/

 ρ 5 Students who had completed pre-requisite courses 1199/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1200/

1201-1213/ 

8. In 2002-2003, did all students in grades 9-12 participate in the School-within-a-School program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 9) 1214/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 8a) 

 8a. How were students selected to participate in the School-within-a-School program? (Check 

all that apply.)

 ρ 1 All students in certain grades participated 1215/

 ρ 2 Students self-selected 1216/

 ρ 3 Students were randomly assigned 1217/

 ρ 4 The most qualified students were selected 1218/

 ρ 5 Students with the greatest academic need were selected 1219/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1220/

1221-1235/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-85

9. In 2002-2003, did your school’s School-within-a-School program have its own: (Check one in each 

row.) 

Yes No 

a. Budget ο 1 ο 2

1236/ 

b. Staff ο 1 ο 2

1237/ 

c. Instructional leadership teams ο 1 ο 2

1238/ 

d. Operating procedures ο 1 ο 2

1239/ 

e. Discipline policies ο 1 ο 2

1240/ 

10. In 2002-2003, was there a separate physical space set aside for students in the School-within-aSchool program at your school? 

 ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to Question 11) 1241/

 ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer Question 10a) 

 ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer Question 10a) 

 10a. What percentage of time, on average, did students spend in the School-within-a-School 

area in a school day? 

 _____ % 1242-1244/

11. During the 2002-2003 school year, did teachers have common planning time for School-within-aSchool program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 11a) 1245/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 12) 

 11a. If yes, about how often did teachers in your school participate in common planning related to 

the School-within-a-School program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 1246/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 

12. During 2002-2003, were all teachers in the school assigned to teach within the School-within-aSchool program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 13) 1247/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 12a) 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-86

 12a. How were teachers assigned? (Check all that apply) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 1248/

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 1249/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 1250/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 1251/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 1252/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1253/

1254-1268/ 

13. In the 2002-2003 school year, did students enrolled in each School-within-a-School take all of their 

courses within their own School-within-a-School? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 14) 1269/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 13a) 

 13a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, was taken within the School-withina-School? 

 _____ % 1270-1272/

14. Were courses specific to the SLC theme offered in your School-within-a-School program in 2002-

2003? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 14a) 1273/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 15) 

 14a. How has the number of course offerings specific to the SLC theme changed since SLC 

funding began? (Check one)

 ρ 1 Fewer courses offered 1274/

 ρ 2 No change in course offerings 1275/

 ρ 3 More courses offered 1276/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-87

15. In Column A, please indicate whether the following kinds of assessments were utilized in the 

School-within-a-School program in 2002-2003. In Column B, please indicate whether any of these 

were new since federal SLC funding was received. (Check one per row in Column A and one per 

row in Column B for each assessment that was utilized.)

A 

Utilized in 2002-

2003? 

B 

New since SLC 

funding? 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1 ο 2

1277/ ο 3 ο 41278/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

1279/ ο 3 ο 41280/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., 

portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

1281/ ο 3 ο 41282/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

1283/ ο 3 ο 41284/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

1285/ ο 3 ο 41286/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________ 1289-1303/

ο 1 ο 2

1287/ 

ο 3 ο 4

1288/ 

16. Were any of the following required for graduation within the School-within-a-School in 

2002-2003? (Check one per row.) 

Yes No 

a. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

1304/ 

b. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

1305/ 

c. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

1306/ 

d. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

1307/ 

e. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

1308/ 

f. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

1309/ 

g. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

1310/ 

h. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 1312-1326/

ο 1 ο 2

1311/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-88

17. During the 2002-2003 school year, were any of the following opportunities available solely to 

students in your School-within-a-School? (Check one per row.) 

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

1327/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

1328/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

1329/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

1330/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

1331/ 

f. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 1333-1347/

ο 1 ο 2 1332/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-89

18. For each of the following, at which level were decisions made during 2002-2003? (Check one per 

row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

Schoolwithin-aSchool 

decision 

only 

a. School-within-aSchool course 

offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1348/ 

b. Selection of Schoolwithin-a-School 

instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1349/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1350/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1351/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

School-within-aSchool 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1352/ 

f. School-within-aSchool schedule (e.g., 

daily timetable 

weekly schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1353/ 

g. School-within-aSchool organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1354/ 

h. Overall Schoolwithin-a-School 

budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1355/ 

i. Allocations within 

School-within-aSchool budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1356/ 

j. Hiring for Schoolwithin-a-School 

positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1357/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-90

19. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s Schoolwithin-a-School has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002-2003 

school year? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1358/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1359/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1360/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1361/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1362/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1363/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1364/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1365/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1366/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1367/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1368/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1369/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1370/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1371/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1372/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1373/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1374/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1375/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1376/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1377/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1378/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next applicable module or to the remaining questions that 

appear on the white pages at the back of the survey, labeled “Your School”. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-91

Magnet School Module 

Please complete this module only if you were implementing one or more Magnet Schools in 2002-2003. 

Magnet Schools generally have a core focus (e.g., math and science, the arts). They usually draw their 

students from the entire district. Magnet schools may or may not have competitive admission requirements. 

1. When did implementation of your Magnet School begin? 

 __ / ____ 1379-1384/

 (mm/yyyy) 

2. Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your Magnet School as of the 

end of the 2002-2003 school year. 

 _____ % 1385-1387/ 

3. In the 2002-2003 school year, did you use federal SLC grant funds to support your Magnet School? 

 ρ 1 Yes 1388/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. Is your implementation of Magnet School(s) new as a result of the federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 5) 1389/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 4a) 

 4a. Have you expanded previously existing Magnet Schools or added new ones as a result of the 

federal SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes 1390/ 

 ρ 2 No 

5. In the 2002-2003 school year, what percentage of the students at your school at each grade level 

participated in a Magnet School? 

 _____% of 9th graders 1391-1393/ 

 _____% of 10th graders 1394-1396/

 _____% of 11th graders 1397-1399/

 _____% of 12th graders 1400-1402/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-92

The following question is about the different Magnet School groups in your school in 2002-2003. 

6. Below we ask you to describe each of your Magnet School groups. There is space to describe up to 

four; if there are more than four, please describe the four largest here and answer Question 6a. 

Complete section A with the names of your Magnet School groups. In section B, please estimate 

the number of students in each Magnet School group. In section C, please provide the demographic 

characteristics of students in each Magnet School. If exact percentages are not available, please 

estimate as well as you can, giving a single number and not a range. Please make sure that the 

percentages given within racial composition and gender add up to 100 percent in each case. 

Characteristics of Magnet School Groups 

1 2 3 4 

A. Name __________ 1403-1407 

__________ 1408-1412/ _________ 1413-1417/ _________ 1418-1422/ 

B. Student enrollment in 2002-

2003 

_____ 1423-1426/ 

_____ 1427-1430/ 

_____ 1431-1434/ 

_____ 1435-1438/ 

C. Demographic characteristics 

Racial composition (%) 

a. Non-white _____% 1439-1441/ 

_____% 1442-1444/ _____% 1445-1447/ _____% 1448-1450/ 

b. White _____% 1451-1453/ _____% 1454-1456/ _____% 1457-1459/ _____% 1460-1462/ 

Gender (%) 

a. Male _____% 1463-1465/ 

_____% 1466-1468/ _____% 1469-1471/ _____% 1472-1474/ 

b. Female _____% 1475-1477/ _____% 1478-1480/ _____% 1481-1483/ _____% 1484-1486/ 

Language needs (%) 

Limited English proficient _____% 1487-1489/ 

_____% 1490-1492/ _____% 1493-1495/ _____% 1496-1498/ 

Special needs/students with 

disabilities (%) 

 

Students with individualized 

education plans 

_____% 1499-1501/ 

_____% 1502-1504/ _____% 1505-1507/ _____% 1508-1510/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-93

6a. If you had more than four Magnet School groups in 2002-2003, indicate below the name(s) 

and total student enrollments in 2002-2003 for all Magnet School groups not listed above. 

 Name Total Student Enrollment

 __________________________ _______ 1511-1515/ 1516-1519/ 

 __________________________ _______ 1520-1524/ 1525-1528/ 

 __________________________ _______ 1529-1533/ 1534-1537/ 

These questions ask about your entire Magnet School program. 

7. In 2002-2003, were all students in grades 9-12 in the school eligible to participate in the Magnet 

School program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 8) 1538/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 7a) 

 7a. Which students were eligible to participate in the Magnet School program? (Check all that 

apply.) 

 ρ 1 Students in certain grades 1539/

 ρ 2 Students interested in particular subject areas 1540/

 ρ 3 Students with academic achievement above a certain level 1541/

 ρ 4 Students with academic achievement below a certain level 1542/

 ρ 5 Students who had completed pre-requisite courses 1543/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1544/

1545-1560/ 

8. In 2002-2003, did all students in grades 9-12 participate in the Magnet School program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 9) 1561/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 8a) 

 8a. How were students selected to participate in the Magnet School program? (Check all that 

apply.)

 ρ 1 All students in certain grades participated 1562/

 ρ 2 Students self-selected 1563/

 ρ 3 Students were randomly assigned 1564/

 ρ 4 The most qualified students were selected 1565/

 ρ 5 Students with the greatest academic need were selected 1566/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1567/

1568-1582/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-94

9. In 2002-2003, did your school’s Magnet School program have its own: (Check one in each row.) 

Yes No 

a. Budget ο 1 ο 2

1583/ 

b. Staff ο 1 ο 2

1584/ 

c. Instructional leadership teams ο 1 ο 2

1585/ 

d. Operating procedures ο 1 ο 2

1586/ 

e. Discipline policies ο 1 ο 2

1587/ 

10. In 2002-2003, was there a separate physical space set aside for students in the Magnet School 

program at your school? 

 ρ 1 Not at all separate (Skip to Question 11) 1588/

 ρ 2 Somewhat separate (e.g., some common facilities and/or some separate 

instructional areas) (Answer Question 10a) 

 ρ 3 Entirely separate (Answer Question 10a) 

 10a. What percentage of time, on average, did students spend in the Magnet School area in a 

school day? 

 _____ % 1589-1591/

11. During the 2002-2003 school year, did teachers have common planning time for Magnet School 

program activities? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 11a) 1592/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 12) 

 11a. If yes, about how often did teachers in your school participate in common planning related to 

the Magnet School program? 

 ρ 1 Less than once a month 1593/ 

 ρ 2 About once a month 

 ρ 3 Two to three times per month 

 ρ 4 Weekly

 ρ 5 Two to three times per week 

 ρ 6 Daily 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-95

12. During 2002-2003, were all teachers in the school assigned to teach within the Magnet School 

program?

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 13) 1594/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 12a) 

 12a. How were teachers assigned? (Check all that apply) 

 ρ 1 Teachers volunteered 1595/

 ρ 2 Teachers were assigned because of content expertise 1596/

 ρ 3 Teachers were assigned because of interest/motivation 1597/

 ρ 4 Teachers were assigned due to staffing needs 1598/ 

 ρ 5 Teachers were assigned based on seniority 1599/

 ρ 6 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 1600/

1601-1615/ 

13. In the 2002-2003 school year, did students enrolled in each Magnet School take all of their courses 

within their own Magnet School? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Skip to Question 14) 1616/ 

 ρ 2 No (Answer Question 13a) 

 13a. What percentage of students’ courseload, on average, was taken within the Magnet School? 

 _____ % 1617-1619/

14. Were courses specific to the SLC theme offered in your Magnet School program in 2002-2003? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 14a) 1620/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 15) 

 14a. How has the number of course offerings specific to the SLC theme changed since SLC 

funding began? (Check one)

 ρ 1 Fewer courses offered 1621/

 ρ 2 No change in course offerings 1622/

 ρ 3 More courses offered 1623/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-96

15. In Column A, please indicate whether the following kinds of assessments were utilized in the 

Magnet School program in 2002-2003. In Column B, please indicate whether any of these were 

new since federal SLC funding was received. (Check one per row in Column A and one per row in 

Column B for each assessment that was utilized.)

A 

Utilized in 2002-

2003? 

B 

New since SLC 

funding? 

 Yes No Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1 ο 2

1624/ ο 3 ο 41625/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

1626/ ο 3 ο 41627/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., 

portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

1628/ ο 3 ο 41629/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

1630/ ο 3 ο 41631/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

1632/ ο 3 ο 41633/ 

f. Other (Please specify): 

________________________________ 1636-1650/

ο 1 ο 2

1634/ 

ο 3 ο 4

1635/ 

16. Were any of the following required for graduation within the Magnet School in 2002-2003? (Check 

one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

1651/ 

b. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

1652/ 

c. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

1653/ 

d. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

1654/ 

e. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

1655/ 

f. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

1656/ 

g. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

1657/ 

h. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 1659-1673/

ο 1 ο 2

1658/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-97

17. During the 2002-2003 school year, were any of the following opportunities available solely to 

students in your Magnet School? (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

1674/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

1675/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

1676/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

1677/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

1678/ 

f. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 1680-1694/

ο 1 ο 2 1679/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-98

18. For each of the following, at which level were decisions made during 2002-2003? (Check one per 

row.) 

 

Districtlevel 

decision 

only 

District 

and 

school 

decision 

Schoollevel 

decision 

only 

School 

and 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

Magnet 

School 

decision 

only 

a. Magnet School 

course offerings/ 

curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1695/ 

b. Selection of Magnet 

School instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1696/ 

c. Assignment of 

students to teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1697/ 

d. Student promotion 

and graduation 

decisions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1698/ 

e. Selection of 

professional 

development topics 

specific to the 

Magnet School 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1699/ 

f. Magnet School 

schedule (e.g., daily 

timetable weekly 

schedule) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1700/ 

g. Magnet School 

organization 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1701/ 

h. Overall Magnet 

School budget 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1702/ 

i. Allocations within 

Magnet School 

budget(s) 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1703/ 

j. Hiring for Magnet 

School positions 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

1704/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-99

19. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s Magnet 

School has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002-2003 school 

year? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1705/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1706/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1707/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1708/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1709/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1710/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1711/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1712/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1713/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1714/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1715/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1716/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1717/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1718/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1719/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1720/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1721/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1722/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1723/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1724/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1725/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the next applicable module or to the remaining 

questions that appear on the white pages at the back of the survey, labeled “Your School”. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 

Other SLC Strategies Module 1. Which of these other SLC strategies were being implemented in your school in 2002-2003? (First fill out Colum

strategy checked “Yes” in Column A, complete Columns B-E.)

 FOR EACH STRATEGY CHECKED “YE

COMPLETE COLUMNS 

Strategies: 

A 

Were you 

implementing 

this strategy 

in 2002-2003?

B 

Beginning 

date of 

implementation 

(mm/yy) 

C 

Is this strategy new as a 

result of the 

federal SLC 

program? 

D 

Is this strategy 

funded, either 

wholly or in part, 

by a federal SLC 

grant? 

Block Scheduling (Class time is extended from 45- or 50-minute periods to blocks of 80 to 90 minutes. The added time allows teachers to provide individual attention and work together in an interdisciplinary fashion, and permits a greater variety of learning activities.) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1726/

__ __ / 

 __ __ 

1727-1730/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1731/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1732/

Career Clusters/Pathways/Majors (These are broad areas that address all careers within the area, from technical through professional. Career clusters identify academic and technical skills needed by students as they transition from high school to post-secondary education and/or employment.) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1745/

__ __ / 

 __ __ 

1746-1749/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1750/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1751/

Adult Advocates/Mentors (This model of personalization ensures that each student is known well by at least one staff member. Teachers, counselors, other school staff, and community volunteers—all of whom must be trained—can fulfill this “caring adult” role. Adult advocates meet with 15 to 20 students individually or in small groups on a regular basis over several years, providing support, and academic and personal guidance.) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1764/

__ __ / 

 __ __ 

1765-1768/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1769/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1770/

Teacher Advisory Programs (This model of personalization changes the homeroom period to a teacher advisory period. Typically, administrators and teachers are assigned to a small number of students for whom they remain responsible over three or four years of high school.) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1783/

__ __ / 

 __ __ 

1784-1787/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1788/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1789/

Teacher Teams (Academic teaming organizes groups of teachers across departments so that teachers share the same students rather than the same subject. Teachers who teach different subjects form a team that shares responsibility for curriculum, instruction, evaluation and discipline for a group of 100 to 150 students.) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1802/

__ __ / 

 __ __ 

1803-1806/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1807/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

1808/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-101 

2. SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’s 

SLC strategies (listed on the previous page), taken together, have had on each of the 

following outcomes for your students up through the 2002-2003 school year? (Check one per 

row.) 

Negative 

impact 

No 

impact 

Some 

positive 

impact 

Major 

positive 

impact 

Don’t 

know 

Student academic outcomes 

a. Student academic 

achievement 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1821/ 

b. Academic course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1822/ 

c. Vocational course-taking ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1823/ 

d. Academic achievement 

among at-risk students 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1824/ 

e. Promotion rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1825/ 

f. High school graduation rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1826/ 

g. SAT/ACT test-taking rates ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1827/ 

h. Acquisition of technical 

skills 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1828/ 

Student behavioral/attitudinal outcomes 

a. Absenteeism ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1829/ 

b. Dropout rate ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1830/ 

c. Incidence of student 

violence 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1831/ 

d. Participation rates in 

extracurricular activities 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1832/ 

e. Student tardiness ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1833/ 

f. Student motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1834/ 

g. Student morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1835/ 

h. Student-teacher relationships/interaction 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1836/ 

Teacher and parent outcomes 

a. Teacher attendance ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1837/ 

b. Teacher motivation ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1838/ 

c. Teacher collaboration ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1839/ 

d. Teacher morale ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1840/ 

e. Level of parental/family 

involvement in school 

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8 1841/ 

Upon finishing this module, please proceed to the remaining questions that appear on the white pages 

at the back of the survey. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-102 

The next sections of the survey address your school’s overall experience in implementing activities to 

foster an SLC environment. Please base all answers on your SLC efforts in the whole school rather 

than on a separate SLC component (e.g., Career Academy program). Please note that “2002-2003” 

refers to the 2002-2003 school year. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-103 

SLC Program Implementation 

A. Federal SLC Program Implementation 

This first set of questions is focused on your school’s and implementation of the federal SLC grant 

program during 2002-2003. 

1. Are you currently (in 2003-2004) using federal SLC funds to support your SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 1a) 1842/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 2)

 1a. Are you operating this year (2003-2004) using carryover funds (one-year 

performance extension) from your SLC grant? 

 ρ 1 Yes 

 ρ 2 No 1843/ 

2. During the 2002-2003 school year, did you add any new components to your SLC program? 

(Check all that apply.)

 ρ 1 Career Academies 1844/ 

ρ 2 Freshman Academies 1845/

ρ 3 House Plans 1846/

ρ 4 Schools-within-a-School 1847/

ρ 5 Magnet Schools 1848/

ρ 6 Other strategies, including Block Scheduling, Career Clusters/Pathways, 

Adult Advocates/Mentors, Teacher Advisory Programs, and Teacher 

Teams 1849/ 

ρ 7 None of the above 1850/

 If you added any of the components above during 2002-2003, be sure to complete the 

appropriate color-coded section for each new component, in addition to any components 

that were started earlier. 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-104 

3. Some schools have implemented school-level changes as a result of SLC funding. In column 

A below, indicate school-level SLC-type changes that have occurred as a result of federal 

SLC program funding. In column B, indicate changes that you expect to sustain after 

federal SLC funding. (Check all that apply. You may check both column A and column B if 

applicable.) 

School-level changes designed to foster small 

learning communities 

A 

Changes as 

a result of 

federal 

SLC 

funding 

B 

Changes 

that will be 

sustained 

after 

federal 

SLC 

funding 

a. School governance/administrative structure has 

been reconstructed (e.g., site-based management) 

ο 1

1851/ ο 21852/ 

b. Structural changes have been made to student 

cohort organization (e.g., by grade, by house, by 

duties of teachers) 

ο 1

1853/ ο 21854/ 

c. School physical space has been changed to 

accommodate SLCs 

ο 1

1855/ ο 21856/ 

d. The manner in which students are placed in 

courses has changed (e.g., elimination of tracking) 

ο 1

1857/ ο 21858/ 

e. New courses specific to SLCs have been 

introduced 

ο 1

1859/ ο 21860/ 

f. Curriculum and/or instructional staff have been 

re-organized based upon content/structure of 

SLCs 

ο 1

1861/ ο 21862/ 

g. School-wide core curriculum has been made more 

academically rigorous 

ο 1

1863/ ο 21864/ 

h. Local assessment (e.g., school- or district-level) 

options have been altered to reflect SLCs (e.g., 

use of projects/portfolios) 

ο 1

1865/ ο 21866/ 

i. Staff development and training specific to SLCs 

have been introduced 

ο 1

1867 ο 21868/ 

j. Because of block scheduling or other changes, 

each teacher teaches a smaller total number of 

students than before. 

ο 1

1869/ ο 21870/ 

k. None of the above ο 1

1871/ ο 21872/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-105 

4. Some schools have implemented classroom-level changes as a result of SLC funding. In 

column A, indicate classroom-level changes that have occurred as a result of federal SLC 

program funding. In column B, indicate changes that you expect to sustain after federal 

SLC funding. (Check all that apply. You may check both column A and column B if 

applicable.) 

Classroom-level changes designed to foster 

small learning communities 

A 

Changes 

as a result 

of federal 

SLC 

funding 

B 

Changes 

that will be 

sustained 

after 

federal 

SLC 

funding 

a. Students keep same homeroom teacher throughout 

high school 

ο 1

1873/ ο 21874/ 

b. Independent study is available in core academic 

courses 

ο 1

1875/ ο 21876/ 

c. More varied student assessments are used for 

grading and promotion decisions 

ο 1

1877/ ο 21878/ 

d. Mixed-ability classes are available in core 

academic subjects 

ο 1

1879/ ο 21880/ 

e. A cooperative learning focus has been integrated 

into the curriculum 

ο 1

1881/ ο 21882/ 

f. Student evaluations of teachers are being used ο 1

1883/ ο 21884/ 

g. There is flexible time for classes and additional 

study 

ο 1

1885/ ο 21886/ 

h. Students are taught by the same cluster of teachers 

for multiple years 

ο 1

1887/ ο 21888/ 

i. Teachers serve as advisors/mentors ο 1

1889/ ο 21890/ 

j. Classes are smaller than before ο 1

1891/ ο 21892/ 

k. None of the above ο 1

1893/ ο 21894/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-106 

B. SLC Implementation in Your School 

1. What influence did each of the following factors have on your school’s implementation of the 

SLC program in the 2002-2003 school year? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

influence 

No 

influence 

Positive 

influence 

Don’t 

know 

Structure/Resource factors 

a. State/District standard(s) or 

curriculum requirements 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1895/ 

b. Physical space/facilities, capacity to 

operate an SLC program 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1896/ 

c. Departmental organization of the 

school 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1897/ 

d. Scheduling/Logistics issues about 

the operation of an SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1898/ 

e. Resources, including instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1899/ 

f. Adequacy of curriculum ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1900/ 

g. Time for common teacher planning ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1901/ 

h. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 1903-1917/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1902/ 

Instructional staff factors 

a. District hiring policies ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1918/ 

b. Faculty expertise ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1919/ 

c. Pedagogical practices of existing 

staff 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1920/ 

d. Availability of professional development specific to the facilitation of 

the SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1921/ 

e. Teacher attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1922/ 

f. Teachers’ union attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1923/ 

g. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 1925-1939/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1924/ 

Student/Parent factors 

a. Characteristics of student population ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1940/ 

b. Parental/Family attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1941/ 

c. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 1943-1957/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1942/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-107 

2. After federal SLC funding ends, what influence do you expect each of the following factors 

will have on your ability to sustain your SLC program? (Check one per row.) 

Negative 

influence 

No 

influence 

Positive 

influence 

Don’t 

know 

Structure/Resource factors 

a. State/District standard(s) or 

curriculum requirements 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1958/ 

b. Physical space/facilities, capacity 

to operate an SLC program 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1959/ 

c. Departmental organization of the 

school 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1960/ 

d. Scheduling/Logistics issues about 

the operation of an SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1961/ 

e. Resources, including instructional 

materials 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1962/ 

f. Adequacy of curriculum ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1963/ 

g. Time for common teacher 

planning 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1964/ 

h. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 1966-1980/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1965/ 

Instructional staff factors 

a. District hiring policies ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1981/ 

b. Faculty expertise ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1982/ 

c. Pedagogical practices of existing 

staff 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1983/ 

d. Availability of professional 

development specific to the 

facilitation of the SLC 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1984/ 

e. Teacher attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1985/ 

f. Teachers’ union attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1986/ 

g. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 1988-2002/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

1987/ 

Student/Parent factors 

a. Characteristics of student 

population 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

2003/ 

b. Parental/Family attitudes ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

2004/ 

c. Other (Please specify): 

____________________________ 2006-2020/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 8

2005/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-108 

3. To support the goals of your SLC program during the 2002-2003 school year, did your school 

have external sources of funding from sources other than the federal SLC program (e.g., 

other federal funds, grants, donations)? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Question 3a and 3b) 2021/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Section C) 

 3a. If yes, please indicate whether or not your school had each of the following sources of 

funding during 2002-2003. (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Federal other than SLC (e.g., Title I, Perkins) ο 1 ο 2

2022/ 

b. State ο 1 ο 2

2023/ 

c. Local ο 1 ο 2

2024/ 

d. Private (e.g., philanthropic, non-profit, for-profit, 

foundation) 

ο 1 ο 2

2025/ 

e. Other (Please specify): 

_______________________________________________ 2027-2040/ 

ο 1 ο 2

2026/ 

 3b. For the funding sources identified above, please indicate below the total funding 

amount for 2002-2003. Round all dollar amounts to whole numbers. If you have 

more than one type from one source (e.g., both Title I and Perkins), combine them to 

show the total funding amount for that source. 

Funding source 

2002-2003 

funding amount 

Example: Federal other than SLC (e.g., Title I, Perkins) $50,000 

 

Federal other than SLC: .................................... $___________ 2041-2047/ 

State:.................................................................. $___________ 2048-2054/ 

Local:................................................................. $___________ 2055-2061/ 

Private: .............................................................. $___________ 2062-2068/ 

Other:................................................................. $___________ 2069-2075/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-109 

C. Faculty/Staff Information 

1. What percentage of instructional staff were involved in the SLC program in 2002-2003? 

 _____ % 2076-2078/

2. During the 2002-2003 school year (including summer 2002), did your instructional staff who 

are involved in the SLC program receive professional development specific to the SLC 

program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Questions 2a through 2c) 2079/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to Question 3) 

 2a. On average, in 2002-2003, how many hours of professional development specific to 

the SLC program did the teachers involved in your SLC program receive? 

 _____ hours of SLC-specific professional development per teacher 2080-2082/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-110 

 2b. Please indicate the percentage of SLC teachers who participated in each professional 

development opportunity listed below during 2002-2003 (including summer 2002). 

(Check one per row. Answer only if “yes” to Question 2.)

 None 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100% 

Pedagogical techniques 

a. Cooperative learning 

techniques 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2083/ 

b. Tailoring instruction 

to individual needs 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2084/ 

c. Problem solving/ 

reasoning 

instructional methods 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2085/ 

d. Project-based 

instruction 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2086/ 

e. Team-teaching 

methods 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2087/ 

f. New approaches to 

student assessment 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2088/ 

g. Other (Please 

specify): _________ 

_________________ 2090-2104/

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

2089/ 

Content 

 

a. Subject matter 

content/curriculum

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2105/ 

b. Adoption of SLCspecific curriculum 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2106/ 

c. Interdisciplinary 

projects 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2107/ 

d. Other (Please 

specify): _________ 

_________________ 2109-2123/

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

2108/ 

Student supports 

a. Mentoring strategies ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2124/ 

b. Conflict resolution ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2125/ 

c. Strategies for helping 

low-achieving 

students 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4 ο 5

2126/ 

d. Other (Please 

specify): _________ 

_________________ 2128-2142/

ο 1 ο 1 ο 2 ο 3 ο 4

2127/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-111 

 2c. Which of the following have provided professional development during 2002-2003 

for the teachers involved in your SLC program? (Please check one per row. Answer 

only if “yes” to Question 2.) 

Yes No 

a. School-based staff ο 1

2143/ ο 22144/ 

b. District or other school in your district ο 1

2145/ ο 22146/ 

c. State department of education staff ο 1

2147/ ο 22148/ 

d. Regional laboratory staff (e.g., NWREL, Lab at 

Brown, SERVE, etc.) 

ο 1

2149/ ο 22150/ 

e. Other external providers/consultants (e.g., Talent 

Development, High Schools that Work, First 

Things First, etc.

ο 1

2151/ ο 22152/ 

3. Have teachers who are involved in your SLC program visited other schools in order to study 

their SLC programs? 

 ρ 1 Yes 2153/ 

 ρ 2 No

4. In the first three columns, please indicate the extent to which your school had staffing needs 

in each of the following areas in 2002-2003. In the second three columns, indicate whether 

your school’s staffing needs changed as a result of implementing an SLC program. 

 

Extent of school 

staffing needs in 

2002-2003 

 Change in school staffing 

needs in 2002-2003 because 

of SLC program 

Staffing area: 

No 

need 

Some 

need 

Great 

need Decreased Unchanged Increased

a. Guidance counselors 

and/or other professional support staff 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2154/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62155/ 

b. Core academic 

subject teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2156/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62157/ 

c. Elective academic 

subject teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2158/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62159/ 

d. Vocational subject 

teachers 

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2160/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62161/ 

e. Special education ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2162/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62163/ 

f. Bilingual education ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2164/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62165/ 

g. Other (Please 

specify): ________ 

________________ 2168-2182/

ο 1 ο 2 ο 3

2166/ ο 4 ο 5 ο 62167/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-112 

D. Student-Staff Relationships 

1. During the 2002-2003 school year, did students within the SLC program have adult mentors 

with whom they were formally paired and with whom they met individually or in small 

groups? 

 ρ 1 Yes, a formal pairing process was available to SLC students (Answer 

Questions 2 through 4) 2183/ 

 ρ 2 No, there was no formal mentoring program available to SLC students 

(Skip to Section E) 2184/ 

2. Approximately what percentage of students in your SLC program were formally assigned 

to a mentor? 

 _____ % 2185-2187/

3. Approximately how often, on average, did SLC students meet with their formally assigned 

mentors?

 ρ 1 Once a week or more 2188/

 ρ 2 Twice a month 

 ρ 3 Once a month 

 ρ 4 Several times a year

 ρ 5 Other (Please specify): ___________________________________ 2189-2203/ 

4. Who are your students’ mentors? (Check all that apply.) 

 ρ 1 Teachers 2204/

 ρ 2 Other school staff 2205/

 ρ 3 Adults from outside the school (e.g., local employers, community 

members) (Please specify): _______________________________ 2206/

2207-2221/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-113 

E. Academic and Non-Academic Aspects of the SLC/School 

1. During the 2002-2003 school year, were the following opportunities available to students 

schoolwide? (Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Job shadowing ο 1 ο 2

2222/ 

b. Internships ο 1 ο 2

2223/ 

c. Community service learning ο 1 ο 2

2224/ 

d. Residency/Apprenticeships ο 1 ο 2

2225/ 

e. Cross-curricular or interdisciplinary activities ο 1 ο 2

2226/ 

f. Other (Please specify): ____________________________ 2228-2242/ 

ο 1 ο 2

2227/ 

2. Were the following kinds of assessment used throughout your whole school in 2002-2003? 

(Check one per row.) 

Yes No 

a. Standardized assessments: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

2243/ 

b. Standardized assessments: district-mandated ο 1 ο 2

2244/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

2245/ 

d. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

2246/ 

e. End-of-course assessment ο 1 ο 2

2247/ 

f. Other (Please specify): ____________________________ 2249-2263/ 

ο 1 ο 2

2248/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-114 

3. Were any of the following required for graduation from your school in 2002-2003? (Check 

one per row.)

Yes No 

a. Standardized testing: district mandated ο 1 ο 2

2264/ 

b. Standardized testing: state-mandated ο 1 ο 2

2265/ 

c. Individualized assessment (e.g., portfolios, student 

exhibition/performance) 

ο 1 ο 2

2266/ 

d. Academic course requirements (e.g., set number of required 

courses in academic areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

2267/ 

e. Career/Vocational course requirements (e.g., set number of 

required courses in career/vocational areas) 

ο 1 ο 2

2268/ 

f. Overall number of course credits with passing grades ο 1 ο 2

2269/ 

g. Student self-assessment ο 1 ο 2

2270/ 

h. Co-op or credit for work ο 1 ο 2

2271/ 

i. Service learning and/or volunteer work requirement ο 1 ο 2

2272/ 

j. Other (Please specify): _________________________________ 2274-2288/ 

ο 1 ο 2

2273/ 

4. During the 2002-2003 school year, did any of the following statements describe your school? 

(Check one per row.)

Yes No 

a. The school is organized into subject-based departments such as 

Mathematics, History, Fine Arts, and Technical Arts (e.g., 

woodworking) 

ο 1 ο 2

2289/ 

b. The school is organized in departments according to career 

pathways (e.g., photojournalism, technology, early childhood 

development) 

ο 1 ο 2

2290/ 

c. Courses in at least some core academic areas (English, math, 

science, social studies) are differentiated (i.e., “tracked” or 

“leveled”) 

ο 1 ο 2

2291/ 

d. Advanced placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), or 

Cambridge Program (O and A levels) courses are available. 

ο 1 ο 2

2292/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-115 

5. In Column A, please indicate whether your school implemented reform efforts in 2002-2003 

in any of the areas listed. (Answer “yes” or “no” for each item.) For those that the school 

implemented, in Column B please provide the date started. In Columns C and D, indicate 

whether the reforms were state- or district-mandated, or voluntary. In Column E, indicate 

whether they were coordinated with your SLC program. 

FOR EACH REFORM CHECKED “YES” IN COLUMN A, 

PLEASE COMPLETE COLUMNS B-E 

Type of reform 

A 

Implementing 

this 

reform? 

B 

Date 

started 

(mm/yy) 

C 

State- or 

districtmandated? 

D 

Voluntary 

participation? 

E 

Coordinated 

with SLC (e.g., 

common 

design and 

implementation)? 

a. Curriculum reforms ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2293/

________/_______

2294-2297/ 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2298/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2299/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2300/

b. Standards-based 

reforms ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2301/

________/_______

2302-2305/ 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2306/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2307/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2308/

c. Discipline and 

safety reforms ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2309/

________/_______

2310-2313/ 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2314/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2315/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No 2316

d. School climate 

reforms ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2317/

________/_______

2318-2321/ 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2322/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2323/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2324/

e. Comprehensive high 

school reform model 

(e.g., High Schools 

That Work, Coalition of Essential 

Schools, Talent 

Development High 

School, First Things 

First) 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2325/

________/_______

2326-2329/ 

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2330/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No

2331/

ρ 1 Yes

ρ 2 No2332/

If “yes” to comprehensive high school reform model, please complete the following: 

 Name of Model Source(s) of Technical Assistance (if any)

 __________________________ __________________________________ 2333-2347/ 2348-2362/ 

 __________________________ __________________________________ 2363-2376/ 2377-2391/ 

 __________________________ __________________________________ 2392-2406/ 2407-2421/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-116 

F. SLC-Specific Issues 

1. In 2002-2003, did your school have external partners, such as local business or universities, 

that worked with your SLC program? 

 ρ 1 Yes (Answer Questions 1a and 1b) 2422/ 

 ρ 2 No (Skip to end) 

 1a. Who were the external partners that worked with your SLC program? (Check one 

per row.) 

Yes No 

a. Higher education institutions ο 1 ο 2

2423/ 

b. Businesses/Local employers ο 1 ο 2

2424/ 

c. Community-based organizations ο 1 ο 2

2425/ 

d. Individual community members ο 1 ο 2

2426/ 

e. Other (Please specify): ________________ 2428-2443/  2427/ 
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-117 

 1b. For each of the following, please indicate which benefits were provided to your SLC 

program by your school through partnership(s) with external entities in 2002-2003. 

(Check all that apply.) 

Higher education institutions Businesses/ 

Local 

employers 

Communitybased 

organizations 

Individual 

community 

members 

a. School-to-work 

experiences (e.g., 

workplace visits, 

internships, job 

opportunities) 

ο 1 

2444/

ο 2 

2445/

ο 3 

2446/

ο 4 

2447/

b. Mentors or career 

advisors 

ο 1 

2448/

ο 2 

2449/

ο 3 

2450/

ο 4 

2451/

c. In-school volunteers 

(e.g., classroom volunteers, school-wide 

volunteers) 

ο 1 

2452/

ο 2 

2453/

ο 3 

2454/

ο 4 

2455/

d. Professional 

development (either 

on- or off-site) 

ο 1 

2456/

ο 2 

2457/

ο 3 

2458/

ο 4 

2459/

e. Equipment/supplies, 

including curricular 

materials 

ο 1 

2460/

ο 2 

2461/

ο 3 

2462/

ο 4 

2463/

f. Sponsorship or participation in special 

events held at school 

(e.g., career days) 

ο 1 

2464/

ο 2 

2465/

ο 3 

2466/

ο 4 

2467/

g. Collaboration with 

school on postsecondary education 

and training transition 

(e.g., Upward Bound, 

dual enrollment) 

ο 1 

2468/

ο 2 

2469/

ο 3 

2470/

ο 4 

2471/

h. Post-secondary 

scholarships 

ο 1 

2472/

ο 2 

2473/

ο 3 

2474/

ο 4 

2475/

i. Service on school 

improvement teams 

and advisory 

committees 

ο 1 

2476/

ο 2 

2477/

ο 3 

2478/

ο 4 

2479/

j. Other (Please specify): 

__________________

__________________

 2484-2498/ 

ο 1 

2480/

ο 2 

2481/

ο 3 

2482/

ο 4 

2483/

k. None of the above ο 1 

2499/

ο 2 

2500/

ο 3 

2501/

ο 4 

2502/
Appendix C: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002 and 2003 C-118 

This is the end of the survey. Please make sure you have answered all of the applicable questions. If 

you have any comments or want to describe your SLC program activities more completely, please use 

the space below. 

Thank you for your time! 
Appendix D 

Site Visit 

Reports 

Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-3 

Appendix D 

Site Visit Reports 

Site Visit Report 2002 

Instructions to Field Teams for Writing Up Site Visit Reports 

Among the points to remember in conducting and writing up case reports are the following: 

The case reports are the data files we use for cross-site analysis. Please use the report format as a 

template in which you answer the questions in the order shown (deleting the elaborating material in 

italics). These case reports are not intended to be finished prose essays. It is important that you 

answer the questions where they are asked, even if that means repeating something you have said 

somewhere else in the report. When the reports are used as sources of information for preparing 

cross-site reports to the client, we want to be able to look only under the appropriate heading. Most 

questions come in multiple parts. Please answer each part. 

The questions we ask require you to be both analytic and descriptive. When we ask you to make 

conclusions, be sure to buttress your argument with specific evidence. There may be times when you 

have a feeling about something or you believe something may be true but you don’t really have 

evidence to support it. Be sure to include these hunches, but put them in parentheses and explain 

your uncertainties—it’s OK to be informal in these reports—and important to be as complete as you 

can. 

When answering each question, be sure to note who said it (e.g., “The principal reported that....” 

“All teachers interviewed, except the 11th grade math teacher, noted that....”). This does not mean 

that you are to insert each principal interview response and then each teacher response. We do expect 

a synthesis across those who responded, but it’s important to note who said what—and interesting 

quotes and examples are welcomed. 

The case reports are stand-alone documents. If you want to refer to other text (e.g., evaluation findings, program goals), please summarize the information and attach relevant pages. As we write our 

cross-site report, we will not have the time to search through extensive documentation on each site. 

One case report is written on each school. Each field member is responsible for his/her own 

interviews, classroom(s) observed, and focus groups held, but the overall case report is the joint 

document of the field team. Each team member is to read and comment on the other’s writing before 

the case is submitted. It is important to have different perspectives represented in the report—that’s 

the advantage of team visits. 

Again, please try to use direct quotes and to include anecdotes, especially those that may capture a 

particular feature of the program and how it works. This captures the distinct personalities and 

perceptions of key respondents and makes the case (and our cross-case analysis as well) more 

interesting. This is very important. 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-4 

Overview 

[This is a one to two page summary of the site visit. Begin by briefly characterizing the school itself 

(i.e., size, location, demographics, etc.). Then summarize the big picture on the following 

dimensions: status of implementation, unique features, challenges/obstacles encountered.] 

Brief Description of School Context 

Location, demographics, specific SLC structures (e.g., freshman academy or career academy for this 

visit, plus others) and strategies (e.g., block scheduling) that are implemented, etc. Did this structure 

predate the SLC funding, or was it a result of the grant? What other SLC components and/or other 

reform initiatives are active in the school? 

[Keep this section relatively brief.]

Background and Experience of Respondents 

[Please use the table below to characterize the participants in various aspects of the site visit. See 

attached sample.] 

Method Participants Characteristics 

Interviews Principal 

 SLC director 

 Superintendent (or designee) 

 District-level SLC administrator 

 Teachers 

 Director(s) of guidance 

 University/Community partner 

Focus Groups Teachers 

 Parents 

 Students 

Classroom Observation Teachers 

Applying for the SLC Grant and Preparation for Implementation 

Why did the district/school apply for the grant? 

[Which issues were mentioned most often? Were there any differences across respondents in terms of 

the issues mentioned?] 

Describe the decision-making process at the district and school levels (i.e., who was involved and 

how the decision was reached). 

[Was this a district or school/community-based decision?]

Who were the primary advocates for the SLC in the district/school? What processes were used to 

gain buy-in and build consensus? 

[Were all the advocates from one occupational group, or was there widespread consensus?] 

[If there is more than one high school in the district and not all are participants]: 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-5 

Why was this school chosen for the SLC grant? 

[Do the district-level personnel agree with the school-level personnel? Were there identified 

problems that were expected to be addressed by the implementation of SLC?]

Why did this school choose its particular SLC structures (freshman academy/career academy)? Were 

any of the structures in place before the grant? 

If the school has career academies, why were its particular themes chosen? 

What is the relationship between the SLC grant and the other reform priorities for the district/school? 

What about state reform priorities? 

What outreach, if any, did the school/district do to prepare for implementation of SLC? 

SLC Implementation to Date 

How is the freshman academy/career academy structured and organized? How has school 

organization been affected? Who reports to whom in the SLC? 

What has the school done so far in implementing its SLC? What kinds of changes at the school and 

classroom level have been instituted? 

Who are the active players in the implementation of the SLC grant? What do these individuals do? 

What curriculum changes have been made in order to implement the SLC? 

Has implementation included changes in student assessment practices? 

Has implementation been associated with any changes in practices related to grouping students by 

achievement level? 

Has implementation been associated with any changes in student services such as guidance, advising, 

etc.? 

What role has professional development played in the implementation of SLC? 

What challenges in implementation have come up, and how they have been addressed and/or 

resolved? 

[Do the respondents agree with each other?] 

Since the beginning of the SLC grant period, what changes have been made in the freshman 

academy/career academy program? Why were these changes made? 

Factors Affecting Implementation 

What do school staff and other constituents believe has helped the implementation process along? 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-6 

[Mention the following, as applicable: 

• Strong district support 

• Capable principal and/or freshman academy/career academy director leadership 

• High level of staff buy-in 

• Perceived match of freshman academy/career academy to needs of the high school 

• Adequate resources (financial, personnel, equipment, etc.) 

• Perceived match of freshman academy/career academy to parent/community expectations for 

the high school 

• Other] 

What do school staff and other constituents believe has impeded implementation? 

[Mention the following, as applicable: 

• Insufficient district support 

• Inadequate principal and/or SLC director leadership 

• Lack of staff buy-in 

• Perceived mismatch of freshman academy/career academy to needs of the high school 

• Insufficient resources (financial, personnel, equipment, etc.) 

• Perceived mismatch of freshman academy/career academy to parent/community expectations 

for the high school 

• Other]

What role has the district played? Have any district level policies or initiatives affected freshman 

academy/career academy implementation? 

[Examples include changes in course requirements, graduation requirements, scheduling, allocation 

of resources, etc.] 

What impact have state and (non-SLC) federal policies and/or resources had on implementation of the 

freshman academy/career academy? 

[Examples include statewide student testing requirements, changes in Title 1 funding, etc.] 

Perspectives on and Roles within the SLC 

Teachers. Other than teaching, how involved have teachers been? For example, do they serve on 

any academy-related committees? How has the degree of buy-in changed over time? How have 

teacher practices changed? Do they feel different about their interactions with students? Any other 

important themes that came up during the focus group.

Parents. To what degree have parents been involved? How satisfied are parents with the progress of 

the program to date? Do parents report any impact of the freshman academy/career academy on their 

child? Are there differences in responses depending on whether the child is in a freshman academy or 

a career academy?
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-7 

Students. How did students enter the program? What are the important features of the program for 

students? How have their relationships with teachers changed? What effects on academics or future 

goals do students report? 

Higher education or business partners. What roles have the higher education or business partner 

played in implementation of the freshman academy/career academy? How do partners view the 

program? What services do they provide?

Impact of the SLC 

What kinds of effects do school staff and other constituents believe that the freshman academy/career 

academy has had? 

• Students (attitudes, involvement, behavior, including violence, academics, relationships 

with each other and with staff) 

• Staff (attitudes, involvement in the school, morale, instructional approaches, relations 

among each other) 

• School organization and relationship with administration and with parents and 

community. 

What types of outcomes are cited? 

• Process outcomes:

[Examples: more focused curriculum; increased autonomy of academies; more 

collaborative leadership; more performance-based assessment; students matched with a 

designated adult; school instructional staff responsible for fewer specific students] 

• Shorter-term outcomes:

[Examples: increased positive student behavior; decreased negative student behavior; 

students can articulate and feel accountable to expectations for behavior and academic 

performance; students are more satisfied with school and feel more sense of belonging; 

students feel closer to one or more teachers] 

• Longer-term outcomes:

[Examples: improved student achievement; increased graduation rates (and lower 

dropout); increased post-secondary enrollment; and narrower achievement gaps] 

How do they learn about and keep track of these changes? 

[Do reports from different data sources agree on what the effects are? Do any of the cited effects 

match the reasons the school chose to implement SLC?] 

What are constituents’ expectations and hopes for the coming year in the SLC? 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-8 

Reporting Format: 2004 Follow-up 

The purposes of the follow-up are to (1) chronicle the status of implementation, including changes in 

the last year and signs of/prospects for institutionalization; (2) document and expand on what we know 

about the factors that facilitate implementation (especially in well-implemented programs); (3) explore 

how previous roadblocks (if any) have been addressed; and (4) follow up on key issues that emerged 

during the first round of site visits, such as the role of the district as a facilitator/inhibitor of implementation and the challenges posed by the need to serve diverse learners within SLCs. When they’re 

available, you’ll have a copy of the most recent Periodic Implementation Survey for your school. 

The report begins with a one- to two-page overview that is a summary of the school’s work with SLC 

and will be part of the appendix to our final report to ED. The next two sections ask for highlights of 

the current status and major changes in the last year and a brief description of the respondents. The 

largest portion of the report is comprised of two separate sections (Career Academies and Freshman 

Academies) that focus on implementation, professional development, and impact. The last four 

sections (Other SLC Implementation; School Context; District Context; and Sustainability of SLC) 

apply to all schools 

Other than the overview, these case reports are confidential internal documents; they are the data files 

we use for cross-site analysis. Please use the report format as a template in which you answer the 

questions in the order shown (deleting the elaborating material in italics). These case reports are not 

intended to be finished prose essays; rather, they are profiles in process to which we refer, ask 

questions of, and link with the previous report on this school. It is important that you answer the 

questions where they are asked, even if that means repeating something you have said 

somewhere else in the report. When the reports are used for preparing cross-site reports, we want to 

look only under the appropriate heading. Many questions come in multiple parts, all of which should 

be answered (even if the answer is “not applicable”). 

The questions we ask require you to be both analytic and descriptive. When we ask you to make conclusions, be sure to buttress your argument with specific evidence. There may be times when you have 

a feeling about something or you believe something may be true, but you don’t really have evidence to 

support it. Be sure to include these hunches, but put them in parentheses and explain your uncertainties—it’s OK to be informal in these reports—and it’s important to be as complete as you can. 

When answering each question, be sure to note who said it (e.g., “The principal reported that....” “All 

teachers interviewed, except the 11th grade math teacher, noted that....”). This does not mean that you 

are to insert each response you got to every question. We do expect a synthesis across those who responded, but it’s important to note who said what—and interesting quotes and examples are welcomed. 

The case reports are stand-alone documents. If you want to refer to other text material (e.g., 

evaluation findings, program goals), please summarize the information and attach relevant pages. As 

we write our cross-site report, we can’t search through extensive documentation on each site. Again, 

please try to use direct quotes and to include anecdotes, especially those that may capture a particular 

feature of the program and how it works, or a particularly striking example of facilitating/inhibiting 

factors, or a particularly clear instance of how a program has addressed the issue of sustainability. 

These concrete examples capture the distinct personalities and perceptions of key respondents and 

make the case (and our cross-case analysis as well) more interesting and ultimately more useful. 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-9 

School Name: 

Date: 

Visitors: 

Type: ___CA [or ___ CA + FA] 

 ___ FA (only) 

Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Site Visit Report 2004 

Overview 

[This is a one to two page summary of the findings from the interviews. Summarize the big picture on 

the following dimensions: status of implementation, including changes from last year; context of 

other SLC emphases (in addition to the freshman academy/career academy); context of other reform 

efforts and funding streams; role of the district; facilitators of implementation; challenges/obstacles 

encountered; perceived impact; and prospects for sustainability. NOTE: This Overview will be 

included in the Appendix of the final report to the U.S. Department of Education and therefore must 

not name individuals, schools, or districts.] 

Brief Description of Current Status and Major Changes in the Last Year 

[This section should be kept to one paragraph for each topic (status and changes). What is the major 

thrust of the SLC now? What are the major program elements? With respect to changes, mention 

such issues as major increases/decreases in enrollment or changes in student demographics; major 

changes in school organization (e.g., splitting into smaller schools); turnover in senior staff, 

including the SLC Coordinator if there was one in the past; changes in program design; and major 

changes in school or district priorities or people that have influenced SLC.]

Background and Experience of Respondents 

[Please use the table below to characterize the participants in the follow-up interview. Focus on 

such factors as years on the job and previous job (if new to this one).] 

Participants 

Interviewed 

Before or New 

to Study? Characteristics 

Principal 

SLC Director 

District-level administrator 

___________________ 

 

Other involved person 

___________________ 

 

Other involved person 

___________________ 

 

Other involved person 

___________________ 

 

 

Career Academies (Complete this section if CA was the focus of the original site visit)

Current status of implementation 

• Is the career academy that was funded under the federal SLC grant still in operation? 

If so, how is it supported? (Carryover? Other funds? General school budget? 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-10 

Other?) Have some functions been shifted from grant funds to other funds?) If not, 

how and why did the program end?

• How does the program describe itself: “career academies,” “career pathways,” or 

some other term? Why? (Are they avoiding looking like “Voc Ed” or avoiding 

“steering” students too “narrowly”?) Has this changed in the last year?

• How is the career academy currently structured and organized (i.e., governance, 

scheduling, teacher teaming, location)? Who reports to whom in the career 

academy?

• What is the current state of implementation of the career academy? How does the 

curriculum differ from that of other students who are not in career academies (if 

any)? Are there differences in curriculum across academies? What services do 

students receive? (Focus especially on what services or distinctive opportunities 

students receive by virtue of being in the career academy. See topics below for issues 

to address. “*” designates the most important issues.) 

− *Themes offered

− How faculty and staff are selected to teach courses related to the career academy 

theme(s)

− How faculty and staff in core areas such as English or mathematics are assigned 

to career academies

− How students enroll in the various career academies

− *Students’ enrollment patterns in the various academies, e.g., changing demographics, different patterns of selection, percentage of students served out of the 

total, etc. (Are there any patterns, e.g., high-achieving students choosing one 

particular academy, in how students select academies? Are these patterns 

congruent with the school’s goals? If students choose, are there any controls on 

the choices in order to maintain balance in numbers, gender, SES, race, or 

achievement status?)

− Students’ course-taking patterns (including core academic courses) across 

academies (Has the amount of flexibility changed? Can a student have more 

than one “major”?) 

− Student’s ability to transfer across academies

− Student assessment procedures (e.g., performance assessment, use of portfolios)

− *How the needs of diverse learners are met

− *Grouping students by achievement level

− *Opportunities for career learning (e.g., job shadowing, internships, etc.) (How 

closely related to the career academy are these? Are they related to prior 

school-to-career initiatives? It may help to get materials sent to you.) 

− Staff-student interaction (ratio, how matched, etc.)

− Involvement of other institutions (e.g., university or business partners or local 

employers, focusing on intern/externships for students or faculty, etc.)

− *Resource allocation (sources of funding, etc.)

− Involvement of parents

• What changes have there been in any of the above areas in the past year?

• Why did these changes take place?
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-11 

• Describe any steps the school has taken to facilitate the transition to postsecondary 

education for students graduating from the career academy.

• [FOR SCHOOLS THAT ALSO HAVE A FRESHMAN ACADEMY] How is the 

freshman academy program articulated with the career academy? (This includes 

things like 9th grade courses designed to orient students to career concepts, etc.) 

Has this relationship changed in the last year?

The role of professional development 

• What role has professional development (PD) played in the implementation of the 

career academy, especially in the last year? Indicate approximately what proportion 

of the total SLC budget has been spent on PD specific to career academy 

implementation. What PD topics have been covered that relate to the career 

academy? 

• [IF PD utilized] Has the role of professional development changed over time? 

• What has been the most important contribution of PD to the implementation of the 

career academy? 

Implementation issues and challenges 

• To what extent have their hopes for the program for this past year been realized? 

(This is related to last year’s question that elicited their hopes for the coming year.)

• To what extent do respondents feel that their model for a career academy is “fully 

implemented?” What goals did they have, and what evidence did they use to 

determine how fully implemented they are? Do they anticipate being able to reach 

full implementation? 

• Describe the important facilitators of implementation of the career academy—have 

these changed in the last year? 

• Describe the important inhibitors of implementation of the career academy—have 

these changed in the last year? 

• Factors to consider (as either facilitators, inhibitors, or both; “*” designates the most 

important issues): 

− *District support and the district reform context

− *State and (non-SLC) federal policies and/or resources (e.g., No Child Left 

Behind) (Does the state have career competency requirements?) 

− *Mandated student assessments (include details, e.g., shifts in resources toward 

English and math away from career courses, time spent on test prep, etc.)

− *Leadership by the principal and lead administrators

− *Staff buy-in

− *Serving the needs of distinct populations of learners (e.g., talented/gifted, 

special education, ELL)

− Perceived match of career academy to needs of the high school

− Resources (financial, personnel, physical structure of the school building(s), 

equipment, etc.)

− *Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) funds or other non-SLC funds
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-12 

− Perceived match of career academy to parent/community expectations for the 

high school

− Availability of career education opportunities in the community for students

− Other

Impact of the career academy 

What types of goals for impact on students, staff, and the school as a whole did school staff 

and other constituents have? 

− Students (academic achievement; dropout/promotion; attitudes; involvement; 

behavior, including violence; relationships with each other and with staff) 

− Staff (attitudes, involvement in the school, morale, instructional approaches, 

relations with each other) 

− School organization and relationships with administration and with parents and 

community. 

• Were these goals for change realized? If yes, how did the career academy contribute 

to these changes? If the goals were not realized, to what do they attribute the lack of 

change? 

• Were there any unanticipated outcomes? 

Freshman Academies (Complete this section if FA was the focus of the original site visit)

Current status of implementation 

• Is the freshman academy that was funded under the federal SLC grant still in 

operation? If so, how is it supported? (Carryover? Other funds? General School 

budget? Other?) Have some functions been shifted from grant funds to other funds? 

If not, how and why did the program end?

• Are there distinct “themes” in the freshman academy(ies)? If yes, describe them.

• How is the freshman academy currently structured and organized (i.e., governance, 

scheduling, teacher teaming, location)? Who reports to whom in the freshman 

academy?

• What is the current state of implementation of the freshman academy? How does the 

curriculum differ from that of other students who are not in freshman academies (if 

any)? Are there any differences in curriculum across academies? Are there any 

special literacy/ freshman English programs, with or without interdisciplinary 

features? Are there any common freshman math programs (especially algebra, with 

or without integrated math)? Is there a course designed to help students pick career 

pathways or academies? What services do students receive? (Focus especially on 

what services or distinctive opportunities students receive by virtue of being in the 

freshman academy. See topics below for issues to address. “*” designates the most 

important issues.) 

− *Themes offered (if any)

− *How faculty and staff are selected to participate in the freshman academy

− How students enroll in the freshman academies (Do students have any choice? 

Are all groups alike or do they differ across various types of students?) 

− Policy with respect to students who are repeating 9th grade
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-13 

− Students’ course-taking patterns (Do students take any courses outside the 

freshman academy?) 

− Student assessment procedures (e.g., use of portfolios)

− *How the needs of diverse learners are met

− *Grouping students by achievement level

− *Opportunities for career learning (e.g., job shadowing, preparation courses for 

choosing a career pathway or academy

− Staff-student interaction (ratio, how matched, etc.)

− Involvement of other institutions (e.g., university or business partners or local 

employers, focusing on intern/externships for students or faculty, etc.)

− Resource allocation (sources of funding, etc.)

− Involvement of parents

• What changes have there been in any of the above areas in the past year?

• Why did these changes take place?

• In what ways (if any) is the freshman academy program articulated with students’ 

programs in 10th through 12th grades? Has this changed in the last year?

The role of professional development 

• What role has PD played in the implementation of the freshman academy, especially 

in the last year? Indicate approximately what proportion of the total SLC budget has 

been spent on PD specific to freshman academy implementation. What PD topics 

have been covered that relate to the freshman academy? 

• [IF PD utilized] Has the role of professional development changed over time? 

• What has been the most important contribution of PD to the implementation of the 

freshman academy? 

Implementation issues and challenges 

• To what extent have their hopes for the program for this past year been realized? 

(This is related to last year’s question that elicited their hopes for the coming year.)

• To what extent do respondents feel that their model for a freshman academy is “fully 

implemented?” What goals did they have, and what evidence did they use to 

determine how fully implemented they are? Do they anticipate being able to reach 

full implementation? 

• Describe the important facilitators of implementation of the freshman academy—

have these changed in the last year? 

• Describe the important inhibitors of implementation of the freshman academy—

have these changed in the last year? 

• Factors to consider (as either facilitators, inhibitors, or both; “*” designates the most 

important): 

− *District support and the district reform context

− *State and (non-SLC) federal policies and/or resources (e.g., No Child Left 

Behind)
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-14 

− *Mandated student assessments (include details; e.g., shifts in resources toward 

English and math and away from other courses such as advisory; time spent on 

test prep, etc.)

− *Leadership by the principal and lead administrators

− *Staff buy-in

− *Serving the needs of distinct populations of learners (e.g., talented/gifted, 

special education, ELL)

− Perceived match of freshman academy to needs of the high school

− Resources (financial, personnel, physical structure of the school building(s), 

equipment, etc.)

− *Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) funds or other non-SLC funds

− Perceived match of freshman academy to parent/community expectations for the 

high school

− Other

Impact of the freshman academy 

• What types of goals for impact on students, staff and the school as a whole did school 

staff and other constituents have?

− Students (academic achievement; dropout/promotion; preparation for the rest of 

high school; attitudes; involvement; behavior, including violence; relationships 

with each other and with staff) 

− Staff (attitudes, involvement in the school, morale, instructional approaches, 

relations with each other) 

− School organization and relationships with administration and with parents and 

community. 

• Were these goals for change realized? If the goals were not realized, to what do they 

attribute the lack of change? If yes, how did the freshman academy contribute to 

these changes? 

• Were there any unanticipated outcomes?

(The rest of the reporting format applies to all schools.) 

Other SLC Implementation 

• In addition to the career academy [career academy plus freshman academy for 

applicable schools] or freshman academy, what other SLC structures, if any, is the 

school currently implementing? (Career/freshman academy, house plan, schoolwithin-a-school, magnet school.) When did these other initiatives begin? How 

do(es) this/these SLC structure(s) relate to the career academy/freshman academy? 

Has this changed in the last year? 

• What SLC strategies (e.g., block scheduling, career clusters/pathways/majors, adult 

advocates/mentors, teacher advisory programs, or teacher teams) are currently being 

implemented by the school? How do(es) this/these SLC strategy(ies) relate to the 

career academy/freshman academy? 
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-15 

• Of the various structures/strategies implemented in the school, which are regarded as 

most central to the SLC effort, and why? 

School Context for SLC Implementation 

• Have there been steps taken either to increase the rigor of the school’s curriculum or 

to remediate low levels of reading or math achievement? What are the initiatives, 

specifically in literacy and math? What is the relationship between this (these) 

changes and the SLC? (Facilitative? Competing?)

• During the last year, have there been any changes in how decisions are made in the 

school? If so, how? What has changed, and is this change related to the freshman 

academy/career academy? (Examples include team meetings, changed administrative 

structure, etc.)

• (Asked of principal or SLC director only.) In what major areas have the federal SLC 

funds been spent? What has been the major cost of implementing the SLC? Has the 

school needed to reallocate other resources in order to implement the SLC? What 

have respondents learned about cost-efficient ways to maintain the SLC? Do any 

outcomes attributed to the program (e.g., lowered dropout) justify the costs? 

• (If the school has other outside sources of funding.) Do the non-SLC external 

sources of funding support the school’s SLC efforts? If so, how, and have there been 

any changes in the last year? 

• (If the school has other concurrent reform initiatives.) Name and describe the other 

reform initiatives that are active in the school (e.g., First Things First). Are these 

other initiatives coordinated with SLC, and if so, how? Have there been any changes 

in the focus of this/these reform initiative(s) during the last year? Have these 

changes had any effect on the SLC program? 

District (and State) Context for SLC Implementation 

(In this section note agreements and disagreements between school-based and district-based 

respondents in the answers to these questions) 

• What role did the district play in the bringing the SLC grant to the school? 

• What role has the district played during the implementation of the grant? How 

supportive has the district been of the school’s goals for implementation? How has 

that support/nonsupport been demonstrated? 

• Have there been any changes in the district’s reform policies? If so, what are the 

changes, and how have they affected the SLC program?

• Are there any contradictions between the reform priorities of the district and the SLC 

program, and if so, have they changed?

• Have there been any other changes, not directly part of SLC, that have affected its 

implementation or operation? If so, describe these changes and their impact on the 

SLC program (e.g., change in student demographics due to an influx of immigrants, 

district budget cuts, union issues, etc.)
Appendix D: Site Visit Reports D-16 

• Have any reform priorities, activities or changes at the state level affected the 

operation of the SLC?

Sustainability of SLC 

• Is the school is still using funds from the SLC grant this year (2003-2004)? If so, for 

how much longer will the school have SLC funds? How are the funds used? To 

what degree is the SLC now paid for by general school funds? 

• If there was formerly a paid SLC director, how are these functions now being 

performed? 

• Which elements of the SLC initiative is the school sustaining/does the school intend 

to sustain, and what specific plans are in place to make sustainability possible? What 

elements, if any, will be discontinued? 

• (If elements of the program are being maintained.) How does the district plan to 

fund the elements that are being maintained? 

• Who are the primary advocates for SLC in the school now, if any? To what extent, if 

any, has this changed in the last year? (Report job or role titles, not names.)

• What are the primary supports and the primary obstacles to continuing the SLC 

implementation after the federal funding is over? (Make sure to include material on 

factors that have proven to be important in our earlier analyses: the role of the 

district, the challenge of serving diverse learners, staff buy-in, administrative 

capability and support, physical space, etc. What lessons are there for the field?)

Analytic Summary 

This is the place to summarize (in about two paragraphs) your analysis of the “true story” of this 

school and its implementation of SLC. It is important that you cite evidence to back up your 

interpretation. What worked? What did not? Why? What are the long-term prospects for SLC in 

this school? 
Appendix E 

SLC Schools’ 

Demographic 

Characteristics, 

1996–97 Through 2001–02 

Appendix E: Site Visit Reports E-3 

Appendix E 

Demographic Characteristics 

Exhibit E.1 

SLC Schools’ Demographic Characteristics, 1996–97 Through 2002–03 

School Year 

Category 

1996–1997 

(n=111)a

1997–1998 

(n=115) 

1998–1999 

(n=116) 

1999–2000 

(n=116) 

2000–2001 

(n=117) 

2001–2002 

(n=114) 

2002–2003 

(n=114) 

Mean school 

enrollment 1,865 1,922 1,947 1,963 1,957 1,936 2,012 

Student race categories (%) b

American Indian 

or Alaska Native 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 

Asian 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 

African American 26 27 28 26 27 28 27 

Hispanic 26 24 25 26 26 29 29 

Native Hawaiian/ 

Pacific Islander 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 

White 40 40 39 40 39 36 36 

More than one 

race 

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 

Student demographics (%) 

LEP-ELL 10% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 11%

Students with 

disabilities 7% 9% 9% 9% 10% 11% 11%

Percentages based on unweighted averages across schools. 

Notes: a n = number of schools reporting data for that year. 

 b Column percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding error. 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Annual Performance Report, SY 1996–1997 through 

2002–2003.

Appendix F 

Additional Exhibits, 

by SLC Structure 

Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-3 

Appendix F 

Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure 

Exhibit F.1 

Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Students’ Academic Outcomes 

by SLC Structure

24%

25%

39%

38%

58%

28%

33%

42%

14%

38%

55%

43%

17%

31%

32%

31%

45%

43%

38%

14%

11%

10%

35%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Gaining technical skills

SAT/ACT test-taking

Graduation rates

Promotion rates

Achiev ement for at-risk

Vocational course-taking

Academic course-taking

Academic achiev ement

Perceived Academic Outcomes

Percent reporting "major positive impact"

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other Structures a

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of schools report that their career academies had a “major positive impact” 

on student academic achievement. 

Note: a “Other structures” = house plans, schools-within-a-school, and magnet schools. 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003, Modules, 

Question 19: “SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’ [SLC 

structure] has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002–2003 school year? 

(Check one per row.)” 
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-4 

Exhibit F.2 

Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Students’ Behavioral and 

Attitudinal Outcomes by SLC Structure

73%

49%

52%

24%

36%

52%

42%

42%

14%

37%

47%

74%

55%

57%

12%

39%

36%

26%

43%

14%

44%

72%

29%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Student-teacher interaction

Morale

Motiv ation

Tardiness

Ex tracurricular participation

Incidence of v iolence

Dropout rate

Absenteeism

Perceived Behavioral Outcomes

Percent reporting "major positive impact"

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other Structuresa

Exhibit reads: Forty-two percent of schools report that their career academies had a “major positive impact” 

on absenteeism. 

Note: a “Other structures” = house plans, schools-within-a-school, and magnet schools. 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003, Modules, 

Question 19: “SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’ [SLC 

structure] has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002–2003 school year? 

(Check one per row.)” 
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-5 

Exhibit F.3 

Percentages of Schools Reporting Various Impacts of SLC on Teacher and Parent Outcomes 

by SLC Structure

25%

47%

68%

56%

28%

29%

43%

62%

44%

43%

14%

32%

29%

36%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Parental inv olv ement

Teacher morale

Teacher collaboration

Teacher motiv ation

Teacher attendance

Perceived Parent/Techer Outcomes

Percent reporting "major positive impact"

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other Structuresa

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight percent of schools report that their career academies had a “major positive impact” 

on teacher attendance. 

Note: a “Other structures” = house plans, schools-within-a-school, and magnet schools. 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003, Modules, 

Question 19: “SLCs are designed to have certain outcomes. What impact do you perceive your school’ [SLC 

structure] has had on each of the following outcomes for its students up through the 2002–2003 school year? 

(Check one per row.)” 
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-6 

Exhibit F.4 

Percentages of SLC Schools Reporting Using Federal SLC Programs to Support New SLC 

Structures, by SLC Type

32%

69%

30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other SLC Structures

Percent of Schools

n = 44 n = 58 n = 33

Exhibit reads: In 32 percent of SLC schools with career academies, implementation of career academies is new 

as a result of the federal SLC program.

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003, Module 

Question 4: “Is your implementation of Career Academies new as a result of the federal SLC program?” 
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-7 

Exhibit F.5 

Percentages of SLC Schools Reporting Various Rates of Progress Toward Full 

Implementation, by SLC Type

33%

28%

40%

24%

27%

48%

25%

21%

54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Less than 75% 75–99% Fully Implemented

Percent of Schools

Career Academies (n=43)

Freshman Academies (n=57)

Other Structures (n=33)

Exhibit reads: Among schools implementing career academies, 40 percent indicate having fully implemented 

career academies.

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003, Module 

Question 2: “Based on your plans for your federally funded SLC program implementation, please indicate, as a 

percentage, your school’s progress towards full implementation of your Career Academy.” 
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-8 

Exhibit F.6 

Percentage of SLC Schools Reporting Various Levels of Physical Separateness for SLC 

Program, by SLC Type

21%

62%

82%

56%

69%

58% 58%

5%

21% 19% 18% 21%

17%

16%

33%

12%

24%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2001–2002

(n=39)

2002–2003

(n=44)

2001–2002

(n=39)

2002–2003

(n=58)

2001–2002

(n=33)

2002–2003

(n=33)

Percent

Not at all separate Somewhat separate Entirely separate

Exhibit reads: Of schools implementing career academies in 2001–2002, 62 percent indicated that their career 

academies were somewhat physically separate from the rest of the school.

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002, Modules 

Question 9, 2003, Modules Question 10: “Is there a separate physical space set aside for students in the [SLC] 

program at your school?” 

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other Structures
Appendix F: Additional Exhibits, by SLC Structure F-9 

Exhibit F.7 

Average Percentage of Time That Students Spend in Separate Physical SLC Space, Among 

Structures That Have Separate Physical Space, by SLC Structure

51%

70%

65% 17%

75%

46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Career Academies Freshman Academies Other Structures

Percent of School Day

2001–2002 2002–2003

Exhibit reads: Within career academies that were at least somewhat separate from the rest of the school, 

students spent an average of 46 percent of the school day in the career academy space during the 2001–2002 

school year.

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities: Periodic Implementation Surveys, 2002, Modules 

Question 9A, 2003, Modules Question 10A: “If your structure has a separate physical space, what percent of 

time, on average, do students spend in there?” 

(n=21) (n=37) (n=26) (n=49) (n=22) (n=22)

Appendix G 

 Measuring 

Personalization: 

Technical Summary 

Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary G-3 

Appendix G 

Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary

The discussion in this section is meant to provide a technical summary of the statistical methods used 

to develop the personalization constructs described in Chapter 3. These methods are summarized 

below. 

Cluster Analysis 

Three substantive groupings were suggested by correlations run across the 14 indicators of 

personalization (Exhibit G.1). These are listed below, followed by the actual survey items comprising 

each grouping. (Labels for each survey item are also provided to allow for easier interpretation of 

Exhibit G.1.) 

1. Fostering individual student and staff relationships 

• Students keep same homeroom teacher throughout high school (HOMEROOM) 

• Teachers serve as advisors and mentors (ADVISOR) 

• School has formal mentoring program (MENTOR) 

• Percentage of students assigned to mentor (PERCENT) 

• Frequency of student and mentor meetings (MEETING) 

 2. Individualized assessment and classroom practices 

• Independent study available in core academic classes (INDEPEND) 

• More varied student assessments used (VARIED) 

• Cooperative learning focus integrated into curriculum (COOPERATE) 

• Student evaluations of teachers being used (EVALUATE) 

• Individualized assessments used throughout schools (ASSESS) 

• Individualized assessments required for graduation (GRADUATE) 

 3. Teacher teaming and class-size reduction 

• Students taught by same cluster of teachers for multiple years (CLUSTER) 

• Classes smaller than before (SMALLER) 

• Teachers responsible for smaller number of students than before (STUDENTS) 

Examination of the correlation matrix displayed in Exhibit G.1 supported the hypothesis that 

variables should be grouped to create three different constructs for personalization. Variable cluster 

analysis (Oblique Principal Component Cluster Analysis) was therefore used to separate variables 

into optimal group variables, so that the maximum amount of shared variation among variables is 

explained. The results from this analysis displayed in Exhibit G.2 confirmed the three variable 

clusters identified via the correlation matrix.1

 That is, the three specified groups accounted for half of 

the variation across the 14 variables of interest, with the percentage of variation explained with 

clusters or groups of variables ranging from 38 to 63 percent. The column labeled “R2 with own 

cluster” describes the degree to which each variable is related to its cluster, with the last column

 

1

 See Chapter 3 for an explanation of cluster and variable names. 
Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary G-4 Exhibit G.1 Correlation Matrix of Personalization Variables, Organized Into Substantive Groupings (

n=105)

Fostering Individual 

 Student/Staff Relationships 

Individualized Assessment and 

Classroom Practices 

HOMEROOM ADVISOR MENTOR PERCENT MEETING INDEPEND VARIED COOPERATE EVALUATE ASSESS 

ADVISOR 0.39*** MENTOR 0.29** 0.52*** PERCENT 0.41*** 0.44*** 0.78*** MEETING 0.32*** 0.44*** 0.91*** 0.73*** INDEPENDENT 0.04 0.21* 0.08 0.02 0.04 VARIED 0.04 0.20* 0.18 0.08 0.13 0.16 COOPERATE 0.13 0.24* 0.08 0.1 0.06 0.28** 0.42*** EVALUATE 0.08 0.14 0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.19 0.21* 0.18 ASSESS -0.18 -0.03 -0.08 -0.09 -0.12 0.27** 0.38*** 0.23* 0.08 GRADUATE -0.04 0.19* 0.05 0.01 -0.03 0.32*** 0.30** 0.15 0.22* 0.36*** CLUSTER -0.02 0.16 -0.09 -0.1 -0.12 0.04 0.20* 0.20* 0.02 0.11 0SMALLER 0.04 0.27** 0.1 -0.01 0.15 0.25** 0.28** 0.15 0.06 0.1 0STUDENTS -0.15 0.26** 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.04 0.1 0.06 0.14 0.1 0

Exhibit reads: The correlation between ADVISOR (Teachers serve as advisors and mentors) and HOMEROOM (Students keep same homeroom teacher thr

significant at the .001 level. 

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003.
Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary G-5 

“Proportion variation explained” summarizing the amount of shared variation among the variables in 

that cluster. The column labeled “R2 with next closest cluster” serves to further validate the variable 

groupings as evidenced by the low amount of variation with other clusters of variables. The row 

labeled “Total” indicates that these three clusters account for half the variation across the 14 variables 

of interest (49.5 percent). 

Exhibit G.2 

Results of Analysis Clustering Personalization Variables Into Three Distinctive Substantive 

Groupings (n=105)

R2 with 

Own Cluster

R2

 with Next 

Closest Cluster

Proportion Variation

Explained 

Cluster 1 (Fostering individual student/staff relationships) 

HOMEROOM 0.29 0.00 

ADVISOR 0.46 0.11 

MENTOR 0.85 0.01 

PERCENT 0.76 0.00 

MEETING 0.81 0.01 

 .634 

Cluster 2 (Individualized assessment and classroom practices) 

INDEPEND 0.35 0.03 

VARIED 0.49 0.08 

COOPERATE 0.38 0.03 

EVALUATE 0.20 0.01 

ASSESS 0.43 0.02 

GRADUATE 0.42 0.01 

 .378

Cluster 3 (Teacher teaming and class-size reduction) 

CLUSTER 0.53 0.02 

SMALLER 0.25 0.03 

STUDENTS 0.71 0.07 

 .496 

Total .495 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003.

Principal Components Analysis 

Lastly, principal components analysis was employed to weight optimally the contribution of each 

variable to its respective cluster in creating three continuous composite variables. Exhibit G.3 

presents weights assigned to variables within each cluster. Within each of the three clusters, weights 

are all positive and of similar values, suggesting that each variable is contributing similarly to its 

respective cluster. 
Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary G-6 

Exhibit G.3 

Results of Principal Components Analysis Creating Optimal Weights for Variables Within 

Each of the Three Personalization Clusters (n=105)

Weighta

Cluster 1 (Fostering individual student/staff relationships) 

HOMEROOM 0.30 

ADVISOR 0.38 

MENTOR 0.52 

PERCENT 0.49 

MEETING 0.50 

Cluster 2 (Individualized assessment and classroom practices) 

HOMEROOM 0.39 

ADVISOR 0.46 

MENTOR 0.41 

PERCENT 0.29 

MEETING 0.43 

GRADUATE 0.43 

Cluster 3 (Teacher teaming and class-size reduction) 

CLUSTER 0.59 

SMALLER 0.41 

STUDENTS 0.69 

Note: a Eigenvector values for each variable within the first principal component are utilized to weight variables. 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003.

These weights were then used to create composite variables to represent the three distinct types of 

personalization strategies in which schools could be invested. Descriptive statistics for the three 

composites are displayed in Exhibit G.4. 

Exhibit G.4 

Descriptive Statistics for Personalization Composite Variables (n=105)

Composite Mean SD Median 

25th 

percentile 

75th 

percentile

Cluster 1: Fostering individual student/staff 

relationships 

0.00 1.78 -0.37 -1.87 1.45 

Cluster 2: Individualized assessment and 

classroom practices 

0.00 1.51 0.42 -1.32 1.35 

Cluster 3: Teacher teaming and class-size 

reduction 

0.00 1.22 -0.36 -1.21 1.13 

Source: Implementation Study of Smaller Learning Communities, Periodic Implementation Survey, 2003.
Appendix G: Measuring Personalization: Technical Summary G-7 

Values that these composite variables take on were created as follows. In the process of contributing 

to an overall composite score, individual variables are standardized by calculating the difference 

between an individual observation and a variable’s mean value and dividing that by the variable’s 

standard deviation. That is, 

SDX

X X X i

i

1

* 1 1

1

− = . 

In the case of Cluster 1, therefore, a composite value for an individual school (C1i) is calculated as 

follows: 

Where an individual school is not implementing many of the strategies within a particular cluster, 

standardized scores for individual variables within that cluster and the resulting composite will be 

negative. Composite scores therefore are scaled to center on 0 and have a standard deviation of 1. 

Nevertheless, for each of the three composites, higher values suggest that a school is very invested in 

using personalization strategies in that particular area, whereas lower values suggest that a school is 

not.2

 

2

 In all three instances, the composites are not normally distributed, that is, they are skewed to the extent that 

the median does not equal the mean. A median higher than the mean for the first composite, as compared to the 

next two composites, indicates more schools scoring higher on the construct measuring classroom and 

assessment strategies focused on individualization. 

C i X i X i X i X i X i

*

5 *4 *3 *2 * 1 = .30 1 + .38 + .52 + .49 + .50

Appendix H 

Career and Freshman 

Academy Overviews 

Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-3 

Appendix H 

Career and Freshman Academy Overviews 

Career Academy Overviews 

High School A 

School Context 

High School A is located in a university town and has been in operation for over 36 years. One of 

four high schools in the district, it serves approximately 1,500 students in grades 9–12 and has about 

65 faculty and 32 support staff. It enrolls a predominantly white student population who came from a 

mixture of middle and working class families. Minority students comprise under 20 percent of the 

student body: Asian American, 4 percent; Hispanic, 6 percent; Native American, 3 percent; and 

African-American, 3 percent. Approximately 17 percent of the school’s population qualify for free or 

reduced-price lunches (www.greatschools.net).

Prior to SLCs 

Prior to receiving the grant, High School A had implemented block scheduling for all students. The 

schedules differed according to whether it is a “red” day or a “blue” day; “red” and “blue” days 

alternated. In 9th- and 10th-grades, English and social studies teachers were teamed together in the 

blocks, but little else was in place. Prior to receiving the grant, the school had implemented three 

SLCs: 

• International High School (HIS). Approximately 300 students spent half of their day 

with a team of teachers within the program’s focus area and the rest of their day meeting 

other high school requirements outside of IHS. The program had open enrollment, 

although it tended to attract capable students. If they wished, students could pursue an 

International Baccalaureate. 

• Alternative High School. This program was self-contained and served approximately 

150 students for whom the traditional high school structure did not work. It had a 

separate space and a distinctive schedule. 

• Career Academy Program. This program served approximately 110 students in grades 

11 and 12. It was a career academy with an emphasis on natural resources. Students 

participated in field studies, seminars, and online learning in their half-day in the program 

with a team of teachers. For the rest of their day, they met their other high school 

requirements with the general High School A population. 

Also prior to receiving the federal SLC grant, High School A had been one of six schools designated 

by the state as a New Century High School. The New Century money (which ran out about two years 

ago) was used to help the school develop programs and work on appropriate assessments for the 

state’s new assessment, Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM), with a view toward their being a 

model for other schools in the state. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-4 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The school’s SLC grant application noted that approximately half of its students were unable to 

demonstrate proficiency for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) in reading and math. The school 

wanted to improve on this record, and also to reduce the achievement gap between middle- and 

working-class students. The school’s goal was to place all students in an SLC. High School A 

reported growth of about 100 students per year for several years before applying for the SLC grant, 

with at least some of that growth coming from students in other high school attendance areas. 

According to the school’s proposal to ED: 

The area’s high growth rate and changing economy have presented some of the same 

educational stresses found in larger cities. The questions of how to educate children 

from increasingly diverse ethnic backgrounds, from working class families no longer 

able to depend on the forest products industry, and in an environment of cutbacks in 

public services, have become central to educational planning. 

SLC Activities 

The school had spent most of its SLC grant money and attention on programs directed toward its 9thand 10th-graders. The school implemented 9th- and 10th-grade blocks (these programs included all 

9th- and 10th-graders); some of these were linked with a career pathway (CAM) program in 11th- and 

12th-grades. In each case, the blocks integrated English and social studies content; in some cases, 

math, science, or art (as appropriate to the content area) were also integrated. Teachers shared 

common planning time as well as students, and teachers of the ninth-grade students continued with 

those students in the 10th-grade (a process known as “looping”). High School A also added three 

CAM programs—Health Services, Human Resources, and Arts and Communication—to the 

preexisting programs in Natural Resources and International Studies (IHS). About half of the 11thand 12th-grade students participated in a CAM program (according to the APR submitted 9/30/02). 

The courses of study for each CAM reflect alignment with a career pathway. The teachers in the 

CAM programs shared some students in common but did not have common planning time (except in 

IHS). 

Factors 

In 2002–03, major facilitators for the development of SLCs at High School A included the following: 

strong administrative support from both the previous and current principals; support from the district 

curriculum staff; teacher buy-in that grew each year (as well as many new staff who came in already 

committed to the SLC idea); professional development (as well as release time in which to plan); and 

the assistance of an outside evaluator and a recognized expert on SLCs. Major obstacles included 

faculty and staff overwork, lack of buy-in on the part of some teachers (although there is no active 

opposition), scheduling constraints, and confusion about the state’s criteria for earning a CAM. 

Status in 2003–04 

During the 2003–04 school year, development of the 9th- and 10th-grade SLCs continued as the 

major focus of the SLC grant. Among the CAMs, the Arts Academy was changed into “Pop Culture” 

and added a student performance component, and a new SLC with a focus on “wellness” was started 

that included a faculty team working across five subject areas. A SLC with a focus on current events 

was expected in 2004–05. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-5 

High School C 

School Context 

High School C enrolled almost 1,800 students and was located in a mixed residential and commercial 

urban neighborhood. Approximately 46 percent of students are Hispanic, 33 percent AfricanAmerican, and 18 percent Asian or Pacific Islander. More than 70 percent of the students are English 

Language Learners (ELLs). Three-quarters of the students were eligible for the federal free or 

reduced-price lunch program, and fewer than 10 percent of the students had attained a rating of 

“proficient” in the statewide assessments in reading (9th–12th grade). It was the second-lowestscoring school in the district. High School C was one of five comprehensive high schools in the 

district to receive federal SLC funds. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The district has targeted High School C and another high school in the district for “transformation”—

the reconfiguration of large comprehensive high schools into smaller autonomous schools co-located 

within the original campus. Prior to receipt of federal funds, a career academy at High School C left 

the campus to become a new small school, taking its High School C students with it. Even though 

some of High School C’s highest achieving students were now at the small school, the district 

applauded this as one successful approach to forming new, small autonomous schools (NSASs). The 

NSAS concept was strongly held by the superintendent and his appointed staff, including the assistant 

superintendent for school reform. 

SLC Activities 

In the 2002–03 school year, the district generally hoped to encourage the propagation of more NSASs 

located within the comprehensive high schools in the district. Staff who were less interested in being 

a part of the reform had begun to leave the High School C, and the principal used the vision of 

transformation as a recruiting tool in hiring new teachers. So far, the principal reported that this had 

been working quite well—more resistant teachers had left and more enthusiastic teachers were 

moving forward with the design process. 

High School C was a school in transition from a performance record that was poor in nearly every 

category compared to one that would include an improved rate of retention through graduation, 

improved student behavior (reduction in suspensions and violent incidents), and improved academic 

achievement. 

In 2002–03, the plan was to begin the five new small autonomous interconnected schools with the all 

freshman cohort, placing 120 freshmen in each of the five academies (by recruiting in the eighthgrade and then balancing the enrollment for equity). The five schools were to be based on currently 

existing academies, including one new non-career-based school and one modified version of a 

business academy. Each school would have autonomy over curriculum, budget, staffing, schedule 

and calendar, governance, and facilities. In 2002–03, they continued to share facilities such as the 

cafeteria, athletic facilities, library, and auditorium, and will share extracurricular activities such as 

clubs and interscholastic sports. The student council already had representation from each academy. 

Status in 2003–04 

In school year 2003–04, High School C’s organization changed drastically, as the school split from 

one high school into five permanent small schools, each with its own leadership team. The former 

principal moved now at the district level, to oversee similar processes at several other large district 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-6 

high schools. According to the former principal, school administrators and teachers were amazed at 

how this change had increased the level of personalization in the school. 

High School E 

School Context 

In 2002–03, High School E served 1,175 students. The student population is mostly Hispanic (83 

percent), with the remainder divided between African-American and whites, with a few Asians. Like 

many other disadvantaged high schools in some large cities, the school has had a history of low 

achievement, high dropout, and a very large number of ninth-grade repeaters. Until recently, more 

than half of the ninth-graders were repeaters—with a majority that had already repeated twice. 

Dropout rates over the four to five years of high school have been over 50 percent. The school is 

located in the midst of a fairly nice, though modest, neighborhood of single-family homes. Less than 

10 percent of the students, however, are walkers from the immediate neighborhood, which seems to 

house older people and people who send their children to private or parochial schools or other magnet 

programs. 

Prior to SLCs 

For many years, High School E has housed an International Studies Magnet (academically rigorous, 

with honors and several AP courses) that is highly selective and draws students from other areas. 

This magnet serves about 120 students and has been organized as an “SLC” all along, although it is 

considered “elitist” and there was some discussion about the separateness of the magnet faculty from 

the rest of the faculty. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

School E began the process of restructuring in 1995, significantly before the availability of the federal 

SLC grant. The impetus for the change came from a small group of teacher leaders who became 

interested in high school reform, in part through their involvement in a professional development 

program at a local university. That project also emphasized the significance of small units, 

personalization, interdisciplinary projects, etc. As a result of conversations between this group and the 

principal (who is no longer there) the school was reorganized into Thematic Houses. Although some 

adopted characteristics of SLCs, they were not sufficiently different from each other academically, 

and the momentum slowed down after a couple of years. 

The Annenberg Challenge began a project in the district in 1995 and worked with some feeder 

patterns. They actually piloted some SLC-like components, including the Critical Friends Groups 

(which trained leaders and coaches) through Annenberg. Additional support came from the Gates 

Foundation and a major Carnegie grant, which is now operated through the Annenberg office. All 

these funding sources together (including SLC) are part of the high school reform movement in the 

district. The district now supports a multi–high school reform movement called “Schools for a New 

Society,” with a new assistant superintendent overseeing the process. Creating “small schools” is a 

part of the effort, once again to focus on personalizing the relationships between students and 

teachers, with the goal of reducing high school dropout rates and improving achievement levels. 

SLC Activities 

The school was organized into three career academies: the International Studies Magnet (120 

students), which had been in place for many years; the Fine Arts Academy (160 students); and the 

ACT Academy (235 students), which focuses on career development and technology but is also 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-7 

strong academically. The school also had a ninth-grade academy that focused on leadership 

development, although not all ninth-graders are in this academy, and the “traditional” academy, 

which is called the Titans. The Titans included the teachers who were unwilling or uninterested in 

being in a thematic academy, and the students who did not select one of the others. This group was 

the largest unit in the school, serving about 452 students in the school. In addition to the academies, 

there was a “Dead Presidents Society” for repeat ninth-graders. They had two hours of algebra and 

extra reading. 2002–03 was the first year the school was implementing this set of structures together, 

and also the first year that students had been able to choose their own academy (previously both 

teachers and students were assigned to certain academies). The implementation at High School E is 

very grass-roots, in that it was really driven by teachers and students. During this site visit, the SLC 

coordinator thought the program was about a quarter or a third of the way toward full schoolwide 

implementation, and hoped it would be about halfway there by the end of this first year of 

implementation. In 2002–03, most of the SLC funds had been used for staff development, which 

included bringing in national consultants to conduct workshops on writing and on group process; 

working with a group of teachers on curriculum mapping; and taking a group of about 20 teachers to 

another school to work on curriculum mapping and team building (including rock climbing). 

Factors 

School E went through some hard times, and when the previous principal left two and a half years 

ago, the superintendent prevailed upon a previously successful principal to head the school. She had 

previously served as a regional superintendent (in the district), and in the central office on the staff of 

the former U.S. secretary of education. She agreed to assume these roles if the principal agreed to 

stay on for five years to see the changes through. During the 2002–03 school year, the principal 

managed to gain the support of the naysayers by allowing the “traditional” Titan academy to exist. 

She claimed, however, that she plans to insist that they take on more of the characteristics of the small 

school approach in the coming year(s), and hopes the size of the traditional Titans will decrease 

relative to the other academies. Her leadership style has been an important factor in support of 

implementation. 

Status in 2003–04 

During the 2003–04 school year the Fine Arts Academy was the most successful, and the ACT 

Academy was not doing well. Respondents believed that it got too big (15 teachers and over 300 

students), lost its team leader (who became the literacy coach), and suffered from low morale and 

reduced student engagement. The Titans continued as a traditional school, with no teacher 

collaboration or personalization. Under the leadership of the school’s Instructional Council, some 

new small schools were being planned for 2003–04: Fine Arts Academy will continue, the Titans 

will be discontinued, and ACT will continue in a much reduced fashion. In addition, the ninth-grade 

academy is being eliminated because it was found to be less successful than the ACT Academy in 

motivating students and in raising student achievement. Another major change will be that teachers 

will teach six instead of five periods. This change is motivated by two conditions: budget cuts, and 

the need to have more class opportunities or students within the academies. Scheduling has been seen 

as a major problem. 

High School H 

School Context 

High School H is a very low-achieving school serving 1,214 students and is located in a residential 

area of a Southern inner-city community comprised of modest houses with small, well-tended yards. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-8 

A large proportion of the students who attend the school are bused here from another part of town, 

due both to redistricting and skimming of the higher-SES students from the school’s neighborhood to 

attend the district’s magnet for academic achievement. On the way to this school, these students pass 

two other schools, which removed some of the community connection and diminished the likelihood 

of parental involvement. Approximately, 65 percent of the school’s population is African-American; 

the majority of other students are white. About 50 to 55 percent of the school’s population qualify for 

free or reduced-price lunches (www.greatschools.net). 

Prior to SLCs 

In 1996, the district approved a comprehensive reform plan that called for implementation of SLCs, to 

be phased in “wall-to-wall” within schools (i.e., whole-school) districtwide in 1998. School H cluster 

(considered to be one of the better clusters in the district, although still with low student success rates) 

began its planning in 1998, with implementation in 1999. During the 2002–03 school year the district 

sought to require that schools provide “continuity of care” through looping (students keep the same 

teachers for at least two years) and to increase personalization through a career academy-like 

structure. The district was also committed to improving literacy in schools, and provided two “school 

improvement facilitators” (SIFs) to High School H for staff development and coaching. 

SLC Activities 

In 2002–03, SLC implementation consisted of the establishment of four themed houses, or career 

academies: Health, Sciences, Community and Culture (Humanities), Performing and Visual Arts, and 

ROTC and Business. Each SLC had themed elective courses linked to career pathways and unthemed core academic courses (English, math, science, and social studies and history). The SLCs 

themselves were still in the process of establishing theme identities, using events and SLC activities 

rather than curricular changes. For example, the Community and Culture (C and C) SLC held two 

events during our two-day visit: they brought in an invited speaker, author Kent Haruf, after the 

entire SLC had read one of his novels (Plainsong) (as a “Community Read”, as part of the state’s 

participation in the (national) United We Read community reading initiative). The second event was 

the dedication of a Vietnam War plaque in the C and C hallway; the commemorative plaque was 

designed and ordered by students to commemorate alumni of the school. Students organized the 

dedication by assembling speakers and local dignitaries for speeches. Also during the two days, the 

Performing and Visual Arts SLC attended a performance by the Alvin Ailey Dance Company. Many 

respondents during our visit commented that the SLCs were still struggling with the theme identities 

and figuring out how to work together. All but one function more like houses, with no career 

pathway requirements. The fourth has two distinct pathways: ROTC or Business.

Factors 

Implementation in School H has faced several challenges. There has also been significant turnover in 

administrative positions. None of the administrators at School H was there when the district applied 

for or received the SLC grant, and none was there when the school began implementation of the 

district model. The staff had become increasingly resistant to change over the past decade as the 

school district has continued reforms that staff viewed as arbitrary. On the other hand, to the district’s 

credit, teachers have been provided with plentiful staff development opportunities from the district, 

including school-based SIFs who provide staff support to improve instruction in literacy and 

problem-solving. (Note: The SIF position is a district-funded FTE on top of the school’s attendancebased allocation of FTE teachers.) 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-9 

Status in 2003–04 

Instructional coaches in Math and Literacy replaced the two SIFs who had been there the previous 

year to support the academies. This was a response to the district’s attempt to improve achievement 

in the two subject areas tested by the state assessments. The school is planning to pilot a fifth 

academy to provide extra assistance to failing students. Unlike the other four academies, it will not 

be a permanent home for the students. 

High School M 

School Context 

High School M is located in a historic neighborhood north of the city. The neighborhood is currently 

experiencing gentrification, but this shift is not reflected in the school’s population. The school 

serves a predominantly Hispanic population (87 percent), and a majority of the students (79 percent) 

qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch program. Approximately 12 percent of students are 

receiving special education services, and 18 percent are classified as Limited English Proficient. The 

school currently serves approximately 1,800 students, 400 of whom are enrolled in a districtwide 

magnet program. The 105 teachers in the school have an average of 15 years experience in the field, 

and 45 percent have attained an advanced degree (40 percent have earned a master’s degree). Unlike 

the student population, few teachers are Hispanic (16 percent), whereas 51 percent are white and 30 

percent are African-American. During the 2001–02 school year, one in five of the students was 

taking at least one honors course (20 percent), and 26 percent of 11th- and 12th-graders took the SAT 

and scored an average of 879 on the combined test (verbal and math). APR data from the 2000–01 

school year indicate that 27 percent of the seniors planned to attend a two- or four-year college or 

university. The most recent data from statewide assessments given during the 2001–02 school year 

indicate that 88 percent of the 10th-grade students in the school met minimum expectations in math, 

and 92 percent met minimum expectations in reading. 

Prior to SLCs 

The high school began to implement a ninth-grade academy in the fall of 1997. The school had 

chosen to implement a freshman academy as part of a pilot program in the Annenberg Challenge 

project (involving all school in their sector of the district). The school also implemented block 

scheduling as well as teacher teams. A teacher advisory program was also in place, typically meeting 

once a week for 30 minutes during homeroom and using a curriculum developed for teachers. 

SLC Activities 

High School M had 9th- and 10th-grade academies in place, dividing students alphabetically between 

three “societies”, as well as a magnet program into which students were selected from across the city. 

The school has grouped 200 9th- and 10th-grade students and eight teachers into societies. In the 

future, the school would like teachers in each society to loop with their ninth-grade students. To date 

this has not happened, largely because of scheduling concerns. As the SIF said during the 2002–03 

site visit, “The schedule is the linchpin to everything, and we don’t do it well.” The school also wants 

to implement themed career clusters in the 11th- and 12th-grades but has not yet done so. 

Status in 2003–04 

When we visited in 2002–03 the school had a freshman academy that was really a 9th- and 10th-grade 

loop, with career academies planned for the 11th- and 12th-grades. Now they are structured as a 9thto 12th-grade schoolwide career academy with five academies (Health and Science, Fine Arts, 

Computer Technology, Industrial Arts and Engineering, and Business). Each academy was to have 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-10 

fewer than 400 students. Each academy has its own leadership—with an assistant principal and a 

guidance counselor assigned to each academy. Academies have not been afforded separate space, but 

each assistant principal is paired with a guidance counselor and they are physically organized into 

areas or offices. The assistant principal and guidance counselors basically run each of the academies. 

In the 2003–04 school year, students and teachers were often shared across academies, particularly 

due to the shortage of certified teachers in core subject areas. The curriculum, for the most part, was 

the same in each academy, and differed only by electives offered. 

High School N 

School Context 

High School N is located in a mostly rural area of the state, which became more population dense in 

recent years. The school is large, comprised of 1,300 students, and is 71 percent African-American, 

with the remainder of the school population being white. About 55 percent of the school population 

qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. The school was one of two located within this particular 

district; the other high school is small—about 250 students in grades 8 through 12—and is located in 

an almost exclusively African-American community that has had virtually no population mobility in 

the past 100 years. The district educates about 52 percent of the school-aged population, as there are 

many parochial and private schools in the area. 

Prior to SLCs 

High School N and eight other high schools in the metro area were part of the “Students Priority 1” 

program, started and funded by the regional chamber of commerce. High School N decided to 

implement the Talent Development High School model, as developed by Johns Hopkins University. 

The first piece of implementation at High School N was the freshman academy. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The organization directing Students Priority 1 decided to apply for SLC funds because the federal 

SLC program aligned well with what the schools were already doing. Each high school had to write a 

proposal to the organization to be a part of the federal application. 

SLC Activities 

In 2002–03 the school had established a freshman academy (rollout was fall 2001) and was in the 

midst of developing career pathways. The career pathway program was the program of interest for 

the visit. Teachers and students had already been assigned to pathways, and in spring 2003 the 

official rollout of the pathway structure was fully implemented. The pathways program was also realigned with state-developed career competency definitions. The school’s freshman academy 

program has benefited from the passage of a bond issue in which a new building was added to the 

campus. This addition houses the freshman academy program. 

Factors 

As noted, public schools only educate about 52 percent of the area’s school-aged population. The 

more affluent (and white) members of the community have often chosen local private and parochial 

schools over the local public schools. As reported by the superintendent, this dynamic has presented 

a challenge to the public schools, in terms of maintaining a sufficient budget and credible reputation 

for these schools in the community. Much of this context relates back to the desegregation plans for 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-11 

these schools, as many white families pulled their students out of local public schools in the 1970s 

when public schools in the region were integrated. 

Status in 2003–04 

Presently, teachers on the freshman academy’s teams share a greater proportion of students in 

common; previously, it was uncommon for freshman to have all four core academic classes with a 

member of the team. Students are doing activities by academy groups. The teacher teams (comprised 

of one teacher from each of four academic subjects) share students, physical space, and common 

planning time. Each team has its own guidance counselor and administrator assigned. There is also a 

10th-grade academy this year. Two of the three teams have common planning time, and the other 

team meets weekly after school. There are also Career Pathways, which are areas of concentration 

for 10th- to 12th-graders. Career Pathways align teachers and students in one SLC group based upon 

content of interest. Pathways are structured loosely; students do not take all their courses within a 

pathway. 

High School P 

School Context 

High School P is a stand-alone high school program with approximately 260 students enrolled. The 

school enrolled approximately 75 percent minority students. Its mission is “to prepare our students 

for a future in which expanded core knowledge in digital and visual literacy, inventive problem 

solving, critical thinking and teaming will combine with traditional foundations of academics.” High 

School P students are “districted” into one of two city high schools but may chose to attend High 

School P, participating only in athletics and other after-school programs not offered through High 

School P at their districted high schools. High School P shares facilities with a middle school. 

SLC Application 

In response to a state report indicating that the labor force was not adequately prepared to meet the 

needs of high-tech employers, the district administration spearheaded an effort to create a program to 

have students specialize in technology fields and to prepare leaders. The initiative was not part of a 

larger reform to create smaller schools; rather, it was generally agreed that SLC was a good fit for 

funding this type of school. The SLC grant was integral to the establishment of the school, with the 

first year of grant money being applied to technology infrastructure and staff development. More 

recently, the grant funding has primarily been used to provide staff development and extracurricular 

opportunities. 

SLC Activities 

In 2002–03 the program operated as an independent school with its own budget, director, faculty, and 

staff, although it was not yet technically an independent high school. The school is a college prep 

program; all courses are college-prep, honors, or advanced placement, and the administration, faculty, 

and staff actively reinforce the expectation that students will graduate and attend college. The school 

opened in September 2000 after an intensive nine-month planning process that involved the school 

district, city government, and business and community leaders. 

Factors 

The school was characterized by strong and visionary leadership, with active participation by 

industry. The school’s program included block scheduling and project-based learning, and staff 

development for teachers. Respondents characterized the school environment as “unique” and as one 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-12 

in which “students can’t get lost.” The establishment and development of the school did not occur 

without encountering challenges, including ineffective student recruiting, some resentment from other 

high schools, limited funding, and insufficient space. Site visit respondents, however, did not 

perceive these challenges as serious obstacles to the school’s development, and the school is generally 

considered to be a successful example of an SLC. 

Status in 2003–04 

During school year 2003–04, the program’s only change was its complete separation from the other 

two district high schools. Where it was once a program associated with both comprehensive high 

schools, it is now a separate, career-focused magnet school. The school appears to have had a strong 

impact on student and teacher attitudes. There was little to no school violence; student and teacher 

daily attendance rates were high; and teacher turnover was minimal. Perhaps the school’s greatest 

accomplishment was its 100 percent graduation and college acceptance rates over the past three years, 

despite the wide range of academic ability levels among students. 

High School Q 

School Context 

High School Q is a large school that was chosen as a career academy site. Its student population was 

2,250. The school was double this size two years ago (i.e., a school enrollment of 4,700), but a new 

school opened to alleviate the overcrowding. Mobility in many schools is high, and there continues 

to be an influx of students from the Caribbean islands and South America. The student population is 

approximately 28 percent Hispanic, 4 percent African-American, 30 percent Asian-American, and 

almost 40 percent white. Only 5 percent of the school’s population qualifies for free or reduced-price 

lunches. About 10 percent of the students have been classified as special education. For the class of 

2002, they reported the following outcomes: 46 percent to four-year colleges, 36 percent to two-year 

colleges, 4 percent to technical schools, 6 percent to the military, and the remaining 8 percent into the 

workforce. 

Prior to SLCs 

Before the SLC grant, the school had a School-to-Career (STC) grant. The school began to identify 

areas of career interest, and developed these into career clusters. The resulting career clusters were 

Arts and Communication; Business and Marketing; Engineering and Manufacturing; Horticulture and 

Environmental Science; and Medical, Public and Human Services. Courses were classified within the 

clusters, and students were expected to identify a cluster and choose courses that fit within them. The 

clusters were not very well implemented. A career research paper was integrated into the English 

curriculum, however, and was sometimes used in social studies as well. There had been a push to 

infuse career information in all the subject areas, but the clusters themselves do not have an 

independent structure. 

SLC Application 

The district responded to the grant announcement because of the perceived state of “emergency” in 

the schools due to the large size of the schools (many between 4,000 to 5,000 students), 

overcrowding, and numerous “incidents,” etc. It was felt that students were not benefiting from the 

educational offerings because of the overwhelming size of the schools. 

In 2002–03, current foci in the district were raising reading achievement and career pathways that 

were intended in part to help students understand why they needed to improve reading. An important 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-13 

feature here was that the state had recently mandated that all schools needed to be SLCs. At the same 

time that there are reform efforts in the schools, accountability (through statewide tests) plays a major 

role in how the schools and instruction are organized. An annual assessment test will be tied to 

promotion at grades 4, 8, and 10. 

SLC Activities 

There were three career academies that started at the time of the grant application and were rolled into 

the SLC initiative. These academies involved a sequence of career-related courses. These were 

Marketing and Business; ProStart, which focuses on careers in food production and nutrition; and 

Cisco Networking, a highly technical series of courses that when completed (including a difficult 

exam) gives a certification in the use of certain computer equipment. Only the first one (Marketing 

and Business) includes English within the academy; the rest are really a sequence of electives. They 

are not “tracked,” and all, including ProStart, include college-bound as well as work-bound students. 

These academies are relatively small (the smallest is Cisco Networking, because many students do 

not get to the higher levels), and there is a sense of “smallness” within them, with teachers knowing 

the students, students knowing each other, etc. 

There was no common planning time for teachers, except in the form of monthly early release days, 

when faculty and departments meet; this meeting time is not used to focus on academy issues. Also, 

teachers are not organized into cluster teams. 

The SLC program at High School Q also includes a potpourri of activities around careers, including 

speakers, internships, mock interviews, some mentoring, and field trips, and attempts to personalize 

education at the school by recognizing students for their accomplishments. This includes certificates 

for work in classes and clubs and community service hours, as well as recognition breakfasts for 

straight-A students provided by the guidance department and postcards home when there is good 

news about a student. According to students, this culture of recognition did not always translate into 

a feeling of personalized education or support; for example, students felt, on the whole, that guidance 

counselors remained inaccessible. The school has several mentoring organizations, and High School 

Q was very successful at establishing partnerships with business and industry and community-based 

organizations for internships, speakers, field trips, and mentors. 

Factors 

The school did have a very strong, competent leader as principal, who did what she could to create a 

warm and caring environment as well as keep the school focused on improving achievement. She had 

been in the school about six years at the time of the site visit. 

Status in 2003–04 

High School Q has had many changes since 2002; few if any can be attributed to the now expired 

SLC grant. There are still “career clusters” on paper, but little is done to monitor the student’s 

involvement or enrollment in courses within their clusters. Mentoring and partnerships continue. 

The main change is that it is now a 9th- through 12th-grade (rather than a 10th- through 12th-grade 

school) school due to new construction in the county. Some elements of what was the freshman 

academy now continue in the main building. The principal and two assistant principals are new and 

the SLC coordinator is no longer in the building. Because neither the principal nor SLC coordinator 

are in the building, there is no real ownership of the components remaining. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-14 

High School R 

School Context 

High School R is an urban school that enrolls approximately 1,700 students. The school has a very 

diverse student body, with more than 20 languages spoken by students. The school has a very high 

mobility rate (approximately 50 percent, according to the principal), and students continue to arrive 

during the school year. The school is approximately 50 percent white; 24 percent of students are 

Asian, 15 percent of students are African-American, and 10 percent are Hispanic. Approximately 21 

percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunches. In recent years (since 1998) 

there have been moderate improvements in the school’s state test scores; scores have risen from 34 

percent of students at proficiency in 10th-grade English language arts in 1998 to 42 percent of 

students at proficiency in 2001 (this is above the state average of 36 percent proficiency). In math, 23 

percent of students reached proficiency in 1998, and 39 percent reached proficiency in 2001 (these 

scores are also above the state average of 27 percent). 

SLC Application 

The districts applied to upgrade the high school program and lure parents to shift back to enrolling 

their children in public education. Several years ago, when the city launched a campaign of economic 

redevelopment, it focused on school improvement, especially in K–8 education. In 2002–03, the 

schools and community focused on the high school. (During the last two rounds of NEASC 

accreditation, the high school was on probation.) It is still fairly common for families in the city to 

send their children to a public school in the district through eighth grade, and then choose a private or 

parochial school starting in the ninth grade. 

SLC Activities 

Currently, the major components of High School R’s SLC program are four un-themed houses, a 

freshman academy, and an advisory program. The freshman academy was comprised of teacher 

teams (consisting of one teacher from each of four core academic subjects) within four ninth-grade 

house groups. The teams share students and common planning time. Within the advisory program, 

20 students are matched with an advisor and meet once a week for 30 minutes. Students, teachers and 

administrators were all critical of the advisory program; very few teachers used the time in an 

effective or useful manner because there had not been any guidance about the purpose of the period or 

what content should be presented. Because of state budget cuts, the size of these advisory groups had 

grown from around 12 students per teacher to over 20. 

Factors 

The school was previously suffering some of the consequences of decisions made by the school 

committee and the mayor on its behalf. For example, the mayor—who is also the president of the 

school committee—selected and hired a principal and superintendent from outside the public school 

system (a rarity for this community) to lead the structural changes to be made at the high school. The 

mayor also signed a contract for the school to implement the Breaking Ranks model before either the 

new principal or the new superintendent entered their positions. Therefore, the principal has had 

tremendous difficulty in trying to get teacher buy-in for any structural changes made to the school; 

teachers have not invested trust in the principal as a newcomer. Teacher buy-in still remains a 

significant problem. Many teachers feel that they have not been adequately informed of why the 

school has embarked on these changes, and many do not feel that the school community has given 

any one particular change a fair chance to work, by trying to implement too much at once. It also 

seems that the city has a fairly traditional set of educators, many of whom have been at the school for 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-15 

a number of years and who also attended High School R; therefore, the teaching force is often not 

invested in making change in the way things are done just because these programs and structural 

changes have been proven effective solutions to problems in other schools with similar problems. 

Status in 2003–04 

A new principal came to High School R for the 2003–04 school year. The school has made 

significant inroads with the business community. This relationship has produced a number of 

internship and job shadowing experiences. According to the School-to-Career director in charge of 

arranging them, this year 45 students (out of roughly 700 11th- and 12th-grade students) are 

participating in internships with community business and industry. In previous years, the number was 

around 30 students per year. Students typically spend one period during the school day at the 

internship site and are evaluated by an on-site supervisor. 

Freshman Academy Overviews 

High School B 

School Context 

The school is located in a suburban neighborhood. School enrollment was 2,188 in SY 2001–02, 

broken down by about three-quarters white (74 percent) and over a quarter minority status—19 

percent Hispanic, 2 percent black, 2 percent American Indian, 3 percent Asian, and 1 percent “other”. 

About 4 percent of school’s population qualifies for free or reduced-price lunches. 

Prior to SLCs 

The freshman academy predates SLC funding, having begun in August 1999, with a planning year in 

1998–99, and was expanded to include almost all incoming ninth-graders in 2001–02. The school 

chose the freshman academy approach primarily to address the ninth-grade retention or dropout 

problem. 

SLC Activities 

The SLC program is centered on the ninth-grade freshman academy, which is combined with flex 

days, block scheduling, and teacher teams. The freshman academy is housed in a separate building 

and is organized into four teams, with three teams consisting of between 115 to 123 students, and the 

fourth team consisting of 176 students. This team accommodates an additional 70 students, who 

migrated into the school after the initial distribution of students had been made. The team has extra 

auxiliary teachers to accommodate the extra students. The ninth-grade teachers are organized into 

teams, five teachers to a team (except the auxiliary team with ten teachers), with each teacher 

responsible for approximately 120 students. Block scheduling has also been developed in 

conjunction with a flex schedule, whereby teachers spend one day teaching only three classes and 

getting professional development, and then teaching a blocked course (double period) on another day. 

Teacher teams meet twice a week for a common prep period and a planning prep period (curriculum 

development and student management issues). 

Factors 

A number of factors have facilitated the freshman academy, including district support built into the 

structure of district reorganization; leadership from the former principal, who started the concept of 

the ninth-grade academy in 1998; the current principal, who served as a former assistant principal in 

the school; staff buy-in, both in terms of participation on the school restructuring council and in 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-16 

preparation of the SLC grant; the perceived match of the freshman academy to the needs of the high 

school in addressing the ninth-grade dropout or retention problem; and the perceived match of the 

freshman academy to parent and community expectations for the high school in helping their children 

make the transition from middle school. A number of factors have impeded implementation, 

including insufficient resources to hire the additional teachers who are needed. The augmented team 

is understaffed and does not have enough common planning time. With the introduction of the 

freshman academy there were a number of scheduling issues, many of which have been resolved 

through the institution of flex days. There also seems to be a lack of parental involvement in the 

freshman academy, in that many parents seem unaware of the details of structural changes in the 

school. In addition, student placement into different ability math levels creates tracking and prevents 

the forming of heterogeneous classes where more advanced students can serve to motivate other 

students. 

Status in 2003–04 

During the 2003–04 school year, changes in implementation were mostly fine-tuning. The freshmen 

academy had more staff meetings this year, and formally added the fifth team. The physical 

construction and remodeling of the freshman academy space was underway. To improve movement 

through the space, a hallway was added. Also created were offices and meeting spaces for the 

Student Success Advocates and freshmen academy teachers. The sense was that the program is 

stable. Within a district that has used SLC principles to guide its reform agenda, the SLC freshmen 

academy has become a core of how High School B will be operating in the future. 

High School D 

School Context 

High School D is located in the developing rural-suburban area in an southeastern state, and draws 

students from families whose parents are employed in a range of professions, from high technology 

and professional through agricultural. The high school enrolls roughly 1,600 students, approximately 

13 percent of whom are eligible for free or reduced price lunches. Most (74 percent) of the students 

are white, 14 percent are African-American, 9 percent are Hispanic, and 3 percent are Asian. Eightyseven percent of graduates attend either two- or four-year colleges. The school applied for SLC 

funding to address high ninth-grade failure and dropout rates (roughly 15 to 20 percent of students 

drop out between ninth and tenth grades; 62 percent of those who enroll in ninth grade graduate). 

When implementation began there were 147 repeating freshmen (total ninth-grade enrollment was 

504); this year there were 67 repeating ninth-graders. All of the teachers are state certified (or have 

certification pending), 12 or 15 are national board certified, and teachers’ student loads are low 

(roughly 75 students per semester). The principal began at the school in the first year of the SLC 

grant funding, and did not participate in planning. 

Prior to SLCs 

High School D was one of the first schools in the county to go to a block schedule. The block 

schedule has four periods a day and classes meeting five days per week. Typically, a student will be 

enrolled in two core academic classes and two electives (including physical education and health) per 

semester, and a teacher would teach three periods per day, have one or two preparations, and then one 

90-minute planning period per day. A few teachers are scheduled to teach only ninth-graders, but 

most teach multiple grade levels. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-17 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The school’s assistant principal, who left in 2003, was the person who initiated the SLC grant 

application process in hopes of facilitating students’ transition from middle school to high school by 

reducing ninth-grade failure rates. At that time, a substantial proportion of ninth-graders had received 

more than one “F” by mid-year, and because many of those students had repeated earlier grades, a 

large number of them were old enough to drop out of school before 10th grade. 

SLC Activities 

By the 2002–03 school year, the school had implemented several pieces of its freshman transition 

program, most only partially. The single fully implemented component is an after-school tutoring 

program and center. Students (freshmen) are permitted to go to the center at any time, which really 

means that they may go there at lunchtime or after school. Students who would like tutoring submit 

applications and sign up for a day or the days that they will go for tutoring after school. Teachers 

sign up for the various days and are paid for the hour of tutoring. There are teachers available for 

every core subject. The main aim of the tutoring program is to help prevent ninth-grade failure. 

Another component of the transition program has been the orientation provided to incoming ninthgraders, both when they are still in eighth grade and at a one-day orientation that takes place during 

the summer before they enter the ninth grade. At this orientation, students receive information about 

the building, the schedule, and course and career planning, and they also participate in a ropes course 

(equipment purchased with SLC funds) for team building purposes. 

The school has been struggling with implementing the pairing of academic core teachers. The plan 

was to pair one English teacher with one social studies teacher, have them teach the same ninthgraders, plan together, and—it was hoped—use their shared knowledge of the students to provide 

more individualized teaching, as well as some cross-disciplinary applications. Science and 

mathematics teachers would be similarly paired. Last summer one of the teachers (who had 

experience in scheduling team teaching from the middle school where she had worked prior to 

coming to this high school) spent the entire summer coming up with a plan whereby all teachers of 

freshmen would be paired in this way. The new principal, however, did not support that plan. During 

the 2002–03 school year, only one pair shares a majority of their students (approximately 70 percent), 

and two other teachers share most of their ninth-grade students with one teacher but do not have 

common planning time. Nearly all adult respondents named scheduling as the primary impediment to 

full implementation. 

Factors 

In addition to lack of principal support and scheduling issues, the school suffers from the district’s 

chronic school-reassignment problems. Each year, students from as many as 1,000 families were 

assigned to different schools than they attended the previous school year. This had created a problem 

with continuity for the students who were reassigned and has seriously undermining parental buy-in 

to the school system. 

Status in 2003–04 

In the fourth year of funding (via carryover funds), 80 percent of freshman were involved in freshman 

houses. The school better implemented the houses, which are now centered on teams of teachers 

from English and Social Studies, as originally planned. The houses allow better tracking of student 

progress and identification of dropouts. This past summer the school finally addressed the scheduling 

problems that had prevented the creation of teacher teams by bringing in experienced staff from 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-18 

outside the school to complete the task. This summer, upperclassman started the Adopt-a-Freshman 

program and a peer mediation program was added as well. Primarily run by freshman, the goal of the 

program is to minimize suspensions by having students address cases that were screened and 

submitted by the administration. FAST Achievers was created to recognize ninth-grade students who 

were on the honor role. Saturday School brings in teachers to help students make up missed class 

time and work required for promotion. Finally, the SET program (Students Exploring Tomorrow) 

helped to bridge the “digital gap” and provide low-income families with computers and computer 

training. 

High School F 

School Context 

High School F is a comprehensive high school (grades 9–12) of 1,500 students. Approximately 31 

percent of students are minority. Approximately two-thirds of the students who attend are white, and 

nearly one-third of students are African-American. Forty-one percent receive free or reduced-price 

lunches. The principal estimates that approximately 50 to 60 percent of graduates attend four-year 

colleges. In general, School F is considered a very successful school in a district with a history of 

supporting progressive initiatives and providing sufficient funding. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The main purpose of the freshman-teaming program is to provide support for the transition from 

middle school to high school. School data revealed that freshmen typically perform poorly with 

respect to passing rates, discipline referrals, attendance rates, and dropout rates. The principal, with 

support from the district and a regional school-to-career partner, engaged teachers in a process of 

identifying and implementing a model for providing additional support to freshmen. Team teaching 

was highlighted as a strategy, with the expectation that implementing common planning time would 

enable teachers to identify and address student problems earlier and more comprehensively. 

SLC Activities 

The freshman academy (“freshman teaming program”) was the primary focus of the SLC grant, 

which began implementation in August 2001, and school representatives consider the initiative to be 

75 percent implemented. The teaming program includes (1) physically clustering ninth-grade 

English, social studies, and math teams; (2) creating teams of ninth-grade teachers and students so 

that core groups of teachers teach similar students; (3) appointing a guidance counselor and assistant 

principal to each teacher team; and (4) providing common planning time for teachers. In addition to 

implementation of the freshman academy, the school is in the process of developing career 

“pathways.” As of the 2002–03 school year, teachers had selected or been assigned to a career focus 

and were in the process of creating lesson plans, although students were not yet organized into 

pathways. It was expected that all ninth-grade students would eventually be organized into teams 

based on their selected career pathways. 

The freshman-teaming program was almost fully implemented during the 2002–03 school year. 

Freshmen attended three out of four core classes in a space that was separate from the rest of the 

school, and each team’s classrooms were clustered together, to the greatest extent possible. Teachers 

fully utilized the common planning time to discuss specific students’ progress and challenges. Some 

teachers also developed interdisciplinary activities with other team members, although the 

administration would have liked to see more use of innovative teaching methods and integrated 

learning. Guidance counselors and assistant principals participated regularly in team meetings and 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-19 

conducted follow-up work as necessary. The administration had clearly secured teacher buy-in for 

the initiative, both by following an established school process for implementing all changes and by 

providing considerable opportunities for staff input and professional development during the planning 

period. In addition, the principal made several successful changes prior to the initiative (e.g., 

reorganization of the school by grade level as opposed to departments, implementation of block 

scheduling, etc.), which set the stage for the changes to the freshman program. 

Factors 

In spite of strong principal and faculty support, scheduling remained a major obstacle to full 

implementation of the vision, which will integrate freshman teams with the implementation of career 

pathways throughout the school. It is expected that ninth-graders’ selected career pathways will 

guide the formation of teams, but it was unclear how the administration would align team 

assignments with scheduling issues posed by enrollment in honors and advanced placement classes. 

Furthermore, it appeared that teachers needed additional professional development opportunities that 

focused on specific tools and teaching methods that can be used in a team-based setting (and 

eventually in a career-centered setting). Finally, future funding for the initiative was uncertain, 

although the school, district, and regional partner expressed that they were committed to maintaining 

the freshman teams and would work together to secure sufficient funding. 

Status in 2003–04 

During the 2003–04 school year the freshman academy continues, but the career pathways initiative is 

still primarily in the planning stage. It is clear that the school will need to spend substantial time and 

effort on developing a vision for the career pathways in order to implement fully its vision for the 

program and the connections to the freshman-teaming program. 

High School G 

School Context 

High School G serves approximately 1,200 students and is a low-achieving school located in a 

residential area near the commercial center of an urban city, known as a center for Hispanic culture. 

Approximately 70 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and a growing 

number—nearly 39 percent—are English Language Learners, but the school has the lowest turnover 

in staff or principals in the district. Approximately 40 percent of students are Hispanic, 28 percent are 

African-American, 27 percent are white, and 5 percent are Asian. Teachers are often attracted and 

retained as graduates from the on-site PDS program (see below), and six teachers and four 

paraprofessionals are graduates of School G itself. The school has had only three principals in the 

last 23 years, and the current principal has been at the school for seven years. Like other schools in 

the district, it is adversely affected by the skimming of top academic achievers for the district’s 

academic magnet school. 

Prior to SLCs 

In 1996, the district approved a comprehensive reform model. The plan called for implementation of 

SLCs, to be phased in a “wall-to-wall” fashion (e.g., whole school) within schools, districtwide. This 

was done cluster-by-cluster, beginning with the lowest performing of the district’s schools in terms of 

graduation rates, daily attendance, and poverty status. In 1997, the plan was included in the district’s 

federal court-ordered desegregation exit plan (obligating the district to carry out changes called for by 

the model). School G is in the last cluster to implement the model but had initiated its own changes 

prior to the district’s adoption of the reform plan. School G had already piloted a freshman house 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-20 

system and had put it in place schoolwide, and was thus ready to proceed with other mandated 

changes. 

SLC Activities 

School G had students organized in four un-themed houses that began as freshman houses (and were 

extended vertically to the 12th grade). The school building was designed to hold up to 900 students 

organized departmentally, so the staff and administration have had to take a creative approach to 

establishing distinct areas for the four houses. Each student is also assigned to one faculty advisor for 

four years; teachers and students meet daily in a kind of extended homeroom period (groups of about 

20 students) that can be used for counseling, career advising, tutoring, life skills teaching, and so on, 

at the teacher-advisor’s discretion. Students loop with students for four years. During the 2002–03 

school year the administration tried to make sure that students’ advisors were within their academy 

groups. This essentially meant that there was some switching among established advisory groups for 

students and teachers. 

Factors 

School G also has a staff that is very involved in decision-making. It has been a member of the 

professional development alliance at the state university (PDS) since February 1993. They have 

seven interns who stay from October to May, and staff takes advantage of university courses that 

are offered on-site as part of the PDS, including courses focusing on teaming, action research, and 

mentoring. 

Generally, there seemed to be a lot of energy and enthusiasm at this school—from staff, administrators, and students, and people seemed to genuinely care about each other. One fear that staff and 

administrators shared was that the district would crush the school’s own initiative and expertise by 

imposing a one-size-fits-all reform on a school that was really working at developing its own 

solutions. 

Status in 2003–04 

Currently, the school has six themed academies. The themes include Business and Management, 

Health and Nature, Invention and Technology, Media and Communications, Musical Arts, and Visual 

Arts. The freshman academy structure (four core teachers sharing a common planning time period 

and the vast majority of the same students) has been dismantled, and teacher teams have been 

reorganized within new academies.

High School I 

School Context 

High School I is in a small but growing city surrounded by a largely rural area. The high school is 

clustered in an area near downtown, along with the city elementary and middle schools. The 

enrollment of High School I is 1,240 students. The student population is predominantly white (96 

percent), with very few students receiving free or reduced-price lunches (0.03 percent). The staff of 

the school also appears to be predominantly white. About 11 percent of the school’s students are 

receiving special education services, and no students are classified as Limited English Proficient. Just 

over half of 11th- and 12th-grade students (51 percent) took at least one advanced placement exam in 

the 2001–02 school year, with 72 percent scoring at or above three points for credit. Likewise, 63 

percent of 12th-grade students took the SAT and scored an average of 1,067 on the combined test 

(verbal and math). The most recent data from statewide assessments given during the 1999–2000 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-21 

school year indicate that 97 percent of the students in grades 9 to 12 were proficient in reading, but 

only 39 percent tested proficient in math. Other APR data indicate that 69 percent of graduates 

planned to attend a two- or four-year college or university. 

Prior to SLCs 

High School I began to plan and implement a first year academy (FYA) during the 1998–99 school 

year, two years before receiving federal funding from the SLC program. The school has implemented 

other SLC strategies to support and complement the FYA, including career pathways or clusters, 

student advisement or mentoring, and block scheduling. Of these SLC strategies, block scheduling 

for the entire school and student advisement for the ninth-grade students were already in place before 

applying for SLC funding from ED. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The impetus for starting a FYA at this school primarily came from two somewhat unrelated events. 

A districtwide action research team consisting of 35 individuals, including parents, students, teachers, 

and administrators, conducted a study to identify best practices in the high school context, and one of 

the recommendations later adopted by the school board was to develop FYAs in all the high schools. 

At about the same time, the school had just completed a facility construction project that included a 

brand new wing to the building. They therefore decided to start a FYA at High School I using the 

new wing. The former assistant principal (and freshman academy director) was the primary advocate 

and organizer for writing the grant application to receive SLC funds from ED. 

SLC Activities 

The program involves all ninth-grade students, with extended registration and orientation 

opportunities for the incoming freshman and their families. Once school starts, these students 

essentially take all of their core courses in 90-minute blocks in the FYA (with the exception of 

language classes, band, other electives, etc.), which is a separate wing of the building and is 

physically demarcated, most notably with different colored lockers for students. 

In addition to the SLC director, the program was staffed originally with two team leaders who had the 

responsibility to facilitate weekly 45-minute teaming meetings (during half of the common planning 

times) among staff teaching common subject areas; to coordinate quarterly half-day teaming meetings 

among all staff; to work through administrative and curricular issues related to the program; and to 

facilitate teaming meetings with individual at-risk students on Tuesdays and Thursdays after school 

involving parents, teachers, guidance staff, and administrators to address academic and disciplinary 

concerns, as needed. The program also involves an after-school program called “After-the-Bell” 

staffed by two FYA teachers, offering tutoring to all freshmen, three days a week, with transportation 

provided. There is also a component of the program in which teachers send weekly progress reports 

to parents of freshman students who are doing less than “C” work in any courses. The FYA also has 

student recognition programs, such as “Student of the Month” and honor roll recognitions, 

exclusively for ninth-grade students. 

The FYA also includes a student advisement program, which began the second year of the program 

and has evolved over time to include the entire school. Initially, the program involved each staff 

member or advisor meeting with a small group of students (e.g., about ten per advisor) on a weekly 

basis and focused on interdisciplinary projects (e.g., service learning projects) as well as guidance 

lessons. Currently, the advisement program is still structured so that each staff member or advisor 

meets with a group of students on a regular basis, but the advisors, in general, have more students in 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-22 

their groups (now it is more like 15 to 20 per advisor), meets less often (i.e., biweekly for 10 or 20 

minutes), and leads students through prescribed “lesson plans.” The FYA has its own guidance 

counselor, who helps to organize some of the student advisement program and tries to meet with 

every parent and student at least once a year. 

During the 2002–03 site visit, we were told the FYA does not have a curriculum that is drastically 

different from other areas in the school or, for that matter, from other schools in the district, except 

they have offered career research and development courses to freshman since the 2001–02 school 

year based on five career pathways or clusters. Other activities associated with this part of the 

program include a day-long field trip, in which each freshman student will visit four businesses in his 

or her career pathway, and career day speakers who come into the school to address the students 

during their career research and development course. The school estimates that each student hears at 

least two speakers as part of the course. This component of the program, however, was for most 

respondents only loosely associated with the program. 

Factors 

Facilitating factors for implementation include (1) district, school, and community members working 

together through the action research team committee to reach a consensus on the program; 

(2) continued support from the district; (3) committed administrators and staff, who recognized that 

they needed to sell the program to the staff and the community while also getting their input; and (4) a 

separate new facility separate from the rest of the high school. The program faces continuing 

challenges, however, in the areas of turnover among leadership and staff, with attaining staff buy-in, 

limited resources (i.e., money and time), and scheduling difficulties. 

Status in 2003–04 

Beginning during school year 2003–04 they began implementing the AP or honors program, which is 

an extension to the current AP program at High School I called APEX. In this first year they selected 

a cohort of 31 freshmen who will take six AP courses together each year over their high school 

careers. It is hoped that this will increase the amount of vertical teaming among teachers in the 

school (same subject areas but different grade-levels), and that the teachers in the FYA can take the 

lead in terms of working with other teachers on teaming strategies and through this process teachers 

in the rest of the school can take advantage of the lessons learned in the FYA to build the school’s 

capacity. In addition, High School I is responding to a districtwide policy change that this year’s 

freshman class will have to complete a one-credit graduation project by the time they are seniors as 

part of the increased graduation standards from 21 to 25 credits needed to graduate. 

High School J 

School Context 

High School J is in the fifth largest school district in the country. The district is building schools as 

fast as it can to try to stay even with the growth in the student population. High School J was only 

opened seven years ago, and it has mushroomed to almost 5,500 students, making it the largest high 

school in the country, according to the principal. Several years ago, when enrollment exceeded the 

building’s capacity by an excessive amount, High School J opened an “annex,” consisting of a large 

number of surprisingly pleasant portables, for its ninth grade. Perforce, High School J has had a 

separate ninth-grade program—indeed; the ninth-grade campus is several miles from the main 

campus. The whole school, including the ninth-grade program, is blocked on a four-four schedule in 

which one year of work in a course is completed in a semester. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-23 

The school serves a diverse population: 36 percent Hispanic, 36 percent white, 20 percent AfricanAmerican, and 6 percent Asian-American. Approximately 10 percent of students are Limited English 

Proficient, 6 percent are special needs, and fewer than 15 percent of students receive free or reducedprice lunches. 

SLC Activities 

In 2001–02 the ninth-grade was split into equal-size groupings named “Odyssey,” “Virtual Ventures,” 

and “Quest.” The staff for each group worked out the theme. The primary curriculum component is 

a course titled “Pathfinder,” which all freshmen take. Its purposes are several: to introduce students 

to the career pathways, from which they will choose one; to prepare students academically and 

interpersonally for high school; and to give them a number of life skills. Other aspects of the 

curriculum are infused with curriculum content, especially an allotted 10 minutes during second 

period. Having read the career-related materials, students are supposed to complete questions that 

have been written to be like those on the state’s high-stakes testing program. Although both of these 

curriculum elements have been implemented, they are not uniformly well received by faculty, 

students, or parents. 

Factors 

During the 2002–03 site visit, respondents cited enthusiastic leadership from the principal and the 

SLC coordinators, the availability of various kinds of professional development, and the camaraderie 

that has developed among the ninth-grade staff. Negatives included the large shifts in student 

population, the anticipated dissolution of the group (resulting in anxiety and lowered morale), the 

resistance of some staff, and the relatively low regard for the Pathfinder course. 

Status in 2003–04 

In 2003–04 the “freshman academy” had disappeared with the move of the ninth-grade back to the 

main campus. All that remained was the Pathfinder course that, among other goals, was supposed to 

help prepare students to choose a career pathway. There were also five career pathways for students 

in grades 10 through 12 that the school regarded as its real SLC program. The pathways were not 

totally self-contained, and students (and their guidance counselors) regarded them with varying 

degrees of seriousness. 

As of 2003–04, the paid SLC coordinator was gone, and there were no more stipends for the leaders 

of the five career pathways that remained. The principal, who was a strong advocate for the program, 

is still in place. A new school opened for the 2003–04 school year, which cut enrollment from 5,500 

to 3,600- students and was the reason why the school could now consolidate back to one campus. As 

a result, High School J lost staff along with its students. Some teachers who did not like the pathways 

concept left but so did other teachers. 

High School K 

School Context 

High School K is the only high school in its district. High School K serves approximately 2,100 

student in grades 9 to 12, and its student body is approximately 92 percent white, 5 percent AfricanAmerican, 1 percent Asian, and 2 percent Hispanic; 20 percent of the high school students are eligible 

for free or reduced-price lunches. This county is comprised of nine school districts, of which this 

school district is the largest, serving 7,300 students in all grades. The automobile industry provides 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-24 

the main economic basis for families in this district; other major industries include La-Z-Boy Chair 

Company, Delta USA, and North Star Steel Corporation. 

Prior to SLCs 

In 1993, the school district made a commitment to reconfigure the school district. At the time, grades 

K through 6 were spread out among ten buildings, all seventh-grade students were together in their 

own building, all eighth- and ninth-grade students were together in another building, and the high 

school held grades 10 to 12. The district then restructured to establish ten K through 5 elementary 

schools, three middle schools (grades 6 to 8), and one high school, housing grades 9 to 12. This was 

part of the school’s long-term improvement plan. During the 1998–99 school year, half of the 

district’s freshmen attended the high school, and beginning with the 1999–2000 school year all 

freshmen were housed at the high school. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

Responding to research on dropout rates associated with ninth-grade and the concern that the high 

school would overwhelm the freshmen, the school implemented a ninth-grade academy. Efforts to 

create a ninth-grade academy and to obtain SLC grant funds are credited for the most part to the 

former principal and the former director of vocational education. The ninth-grade academy is 

essentially a school-within-a-school. It occupies one wing of the building and has its own 

administration and counseling staff led by the assistant principal. 

SLC Activities 

Teacher teaming is a key aspect of the academy’s design. The academy has 16 core teachers (math, 

science, English and world cultures), divided into four teams. Each team shares approximately 150 

students, and a member of the guidance staff is also paired with the team. The teams have begun 

working toward interdisciplinary lessons and have common planning time every other day. Some 

administrators feel that, given the professional development conducted on interdisciplinary teaching, 

more should currently be happening. The school operates on an 88-minute A and B block schedule. 

All students at High School K have Student Resource Time (SRT) at the same time every other day. 

Students are assigned to an SRT teacher for one year. SRT is used as a time for school 

announcements and study hall, and provides students an opportunity to “travel” to another teacher’s 

room to obtain extra help. Some teachers explain that SRT also serves to pair each student with a 

teacher advisor and provides teachers the opportunity to meet a group of students and get to know 

them well. As part of the ninth-grade curriculum, the SRT is in the form of a “freshman seminar.” 

Although the curriculum for the freshman seminar is still being refined, its goals are two-fold: (1) to 

help the freshmen get to know and be comfortable in the new school, and (2) to acquaint freshmen 

with possible careers. Students explore the types of jobs they might be interested in pursuing and 

then work on skills such as resume and cover letter writing. Freshman SRT culminates in a jobshadowing day near the end of the school year. 

During the 2002–03 school year, High School K was also in the process of launching career pathways 

in grades 10–12. Pathways included Fine Arts and Communication; Health and Human Services; 

Business and Management; and Manufacturing, Engineering and Technical Services. Once the career 

pathways are implemented, ninth-grade will be considered a preparatory year for students to choose a 

pathway. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-25 

Factors 

The biggest challenge during implementation was the process of physically relocating most of the 

teachers’ classrooms in the building, which resulted in a loss of space for some teachers in the upper 

grades. Another challenge was resistance among faculty and guidance staff to working in the 

academy (with ninth grade only). The school did have to hire some new teachers to staff the 

academy. In general, however, the smooth implementation of the program is credited to the strong 

leadership of the high school principal and the ninth-grade principal. A sign of the academy’s 

stability is no teacher turnover from 2001–02 to this school year. Ninth-grade guidance counselors 

are also enthusiastic about the program. 

Since establishing the academy, a new principal has taken over. During this transition, implementation of the career pathways aspect of the SLC slowed. In looking forward, the school recognizes a 

number of obstacles to the sustainability of the freshman academy. First, key members of the 

academy’s staff are retiring after this school year. Second, some resentment toward the academy 

exists from teachers in the upper grades. Not only were they displaced in establishing the academy, 

but overcrowding in 10th- through 12th-grade classes has also led some upper-class teachers to 

suggest that this has been caused by the allocation of staff to the ninth grade. 

Status in 2003–04 

Over the 2003–04 school year, there was little change in terms of structure of the freshman academy. 

The SLC coordinator left the school to return to graduate studies in educational leadership. The other 

major reform effort of the school at present is getting the 10th- to 12th-grade career pathways up and 

running so that all students will be in a pathway next year. The only major obstacle to its 

continuation is funding, and district priorities for the future are very dependent on an upcoming bond 

issue vote. 

High School L 

School Context 

School District L’s secondary education program is made up of two comprehensive high schools and 

the adjunct High School L. Technically, all of the district’s high school students are enrolled in one 

of the two comprehensive high schools. Enrollment in the High School L is considered dual 

enrollment. When students graduate from high school in the district, their diplomas are awarded by 

one of the two “home” high schools. High School L is the alternative high school program, located 

on three different campuses. 

In school year 2002–03, the capacity of the ninth-grade academy—a central part of the alternative HS 

program—was 85 students. According demographic information on school year 2001–02 APRs, the 

population of High School L was 52 percent white, 42 percent Native American, 3 percent Hispanic, 

and 3 percent African-American. 

Prior to SLCs 

The ninth-grade academy was implemented in 1995, pre-dating the SLC grant. According to 

administrators, this academy was implemented to address the district’s concerns about gangs and 

fights and a high dropout rate. A teacher who has been with High School L since its inception 

described the beginnings as chaotic. The students were older—many were thought to be gang 

members. “It was pretty crazy...a lot of discipline problems.” Classes were 90 minutes long, the 

classrooms were no bigger than offices, and they had no books. She said she was relieved when the 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-26 

ninth-grade academy was moved to the building that was formerly a youth detention center. There, at 

least, they had their own space. Barbed wire left behind by the youth detention center lined the 

perimeters of the building and campus when the ninth-grade academy occupied the site. According to 

administrators, this site fed into the community’s and district personnel’s perceptions that the 

freshman academy was a place for students with behavior problems and led to the feeder schools 

“dumping” problem students in this school. Some students were even ordered to the school by 

juvenile court judges. 

For school year 2000–01, the district relocated the ninth-grade academy to a new building, in part to 

counter this negative perception and to attract the students for whom the academy was intended, but it 

required more than just the move to change perceptions. The principal attended many meetings to 

address concerns about bringing problem teenagers into the community and the impact it would have 

on the neighborhood. He added that since the move there have been no complaints from the 

neighbors about the students who attend the academy. 

SLC Activities 

During the 2002–03 school year, the ninth-grade academy had exclusive use of six classrooms in one 

wing of the building. The previous SLC coordinator and the dean of students addressed staff and 

parents at middle schools to make clear the objectives of the ninth-grade academy and to describe the 

students who would most likely benefit from the strategies employed at the academy. They invited 

parents and students to visit the school before applying. Gradually, middle school staff began to 

encourage students who were having social or academic difficulty in the large middle schools to 

consider attending the ninth-grade academy for their first year of high school. Over time, the 

characteristics of the student body changed from primarily students with behavior problems to 

primarily students with academic and social problems. 

Attendance at the academy is voluntary. The SLC coordinator visits the middle schools in the spring 

to talk with teachers, parents, and students. Students are usually referred by middle school staff, such 

as a counselor, teacher, or principal, but some parents seek out the option for their children who may 

be having trouble academically or need an alternative education environment. Applications are 

accepted from the preceding spring until full enrollment is reached. Students are not admitted into the 

program after Thanksgiving, however, so if a slot is unfilled by Thanksgiving, it remains unfilled for 

the remainder of the year. 

According to the administration and the teachers themselves, all of the teachers volunteered to teach 

in the academy. Five full-time teachers teach the core subjects: English, math, science, and social 

studies. Part-time teachers come in for part of the day to teach the electives: Challenges and 

Choices, drama, and health. At least two of the teachers are certified to teach special education. If 

students wish to participate in extracurricular activities, they do so at one of the two “home” high 

schools in the district. 

The classes are normally 50 minutes long. Teachers stated that block scheduling would not work for 

these students. To maintain attention, they must change teaching strategies three or more times just 

within the 50-minute period. During the first semester, students are not assigned homework and are 

not issued any books. All of the students’ assignments are completed in class; the teachers file 

unfinished worksheets and papers in the classroom. Textbooks for the students are kept on shelves in 

the classrooms and students return them before they leave. Homework is re-introduced in the second 

semester to help students adapt to their sophomore year at the traditional high schools. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-27 

Status in 2003–04 

During school year 2003–04, the ninth-grade academy experienced only minor change since the 

previous year and the end of SLC funding. This year, the district added to its program a semi-selfcontained classroom serving ten special education students. The addition of this classroom was due 

to the growing number of middle school students with emotional difficulties scheduled to enter the 

ninth-grade and to space constraints at both high schools, which eliminated the possibility of these 

students being served at these facilities. 

High School O 

School Context 

The school is located in a middle class neighborhood, but few of the neighborhood children attend 

this school (only 10 percent of the students walk to school). The school is actually a campus 

composed of several buildings on a rather large campus, but the facility is fairly modest. The 

enrollment is about 1,050, but the numbers fluctuate because the population is very mobile. 

Enrollment in the school has been declining. The population is over 90 percent African-American, 

with many students coming from a low-income housing project several miles away. The poverty 

level (according to free and reduced-price lunch program enrollment) is at or above 60 percent. Over 

30 percent of the students are classified as special education. There is a high dropout rate at the 

school. As the principal and assistant principal said, “By the 11th-grade, we have lost about half of 

them.” There are about 412 ninth-grade students (about half are repeaters), and about 142 students in 

the 12th-grade. They claim to be increasing their graduation rate. “If students make it through the 

10th-grade on track, a high percentage do graduate.” As of the 2002–03 school year, there was a new 

principal who was actually considered to be an “interim principal” for the transition year prior to the 

restructuring, when each SLC school would have its own principal. 

Reasons for Applying for Federal SLC Funds 

The school was chosen for the study as a freshman academy site, but we found that the grant was 

written to support transforming the five lowest performing high schools in the district into several 

smaller schools within their buildings, each with a separate administration, and each with 

characteristics of small learning communities such as teams, and schools organized thematically. In 

2002–03, High School O was ostensibly in the planning phase of changing to three high schools 

beginning the following school year. They planned for all ninth-grade students to enter a “school of 

choice,” in which one would be a university academy beginning with grades 9 to 11; one would be a 

public service learning school beginning with ninth-grade; and a third would be a traditional high 

school that would phase out with the first cohort that chooses it but would not enroll any new ninthgrade students after that. Thus, they eventually expected to have two high schools at the site (and not 

three). 

SLC Activities 

This freshman academy is comprised of ninth-grade teams that have existed since about 1995 (long 

before the SLC grant). A team includes the core teachers—English, math, social studies and 

science—who all teach the same kids, very much on the classic middle school model. The team 

members have the same planning period and meet from two to five times a week. There are currently 

two ninth-grade teams. There are also 10th-grade teams. Last school year (2001–02) they began to 

move toward teams in the upper house (11th- to 12th-grade), but they do not work as well because 

students are individually rostered and have more electives. 
Appendix H: Career and Freshman Academy Overviews H-28 

A central feature of the SLC program is a school-based, multi-service center that is trying to meet the 

social-emotional needs of the students. The center is externally funded (a collaboration of 84 health 

and social service agencies) and includes three therapists (licensed professional counselors) and a 

nurse. In addition to providing individual and group counseling sessions, the center provides support 

to teachers and staff and nursing assistance. The center also provides services to families and 

professional development to staff. According to the director of the center (a very savvy social worker 

who formerly worked in the district office), about 75 percent of the services are for the ninth-grade. 

One of the programs offered at the center is a leadership team (of students) that participates in a 

variety of activities, including trips, environmental programs, intergenerational activities, and 

community service. Band is another popular program offered in the school, and is considered by the 

director of the center and other counselors to be “therapeutic.” The school also offers a three-week 

summer “intervention.” 

During the 2002–03 school year, the ninth-grade students spend the school day as a cohort or team, 

and they are not individually rostered for their major subjects. The day was block scheduled (90-

minute periods every other day). All classes, except science, were located in one corridor. A special 

education resource teacher was also part of the team, as there was a fair amount of inclusion or 

mainstreaming. (Note: The students in the focus group—as of November—were not particularly 

enamored of the team concept, especially staying in the same group all day, or of the block 

scheduling!) 

Status in 2003–04 

The public school district split into three small schools and in the 2003–04 school year High School 

O became a reconstituted or “new” school. It now has ninth-grade only and about 180 students. It 

will add a grade each year to become a full high school. The school has a new principal, also new to 

the district. About three-quarters of its teachers taught in the original High School O.
Appendix I 

Modeling of 

Pre and Post 

Differences in 

APR Outcomes 

Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-3 

Appendix I 

Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR 

Outcomes 

The presentation in Chapter 5 of changes in student outcomes as reported by schools on the APR for 

school years 1996–97 through 2002–03 was primarily descriptive. Complementing the methodology 

discussion in Chapter 5, this appendix presents a more formal discussion of our approach to modeling 

school-level outcomes using longitudinal growth curve analyses, and also presents the formal 

statistical findings from our analyses of pre and post differences in APR outcomes (Exhibit I.1 and 

I.2). 

As presented in Chapter 5, the main questions driving these analyses are: 

• How do SLC schools change over time with respect to each outcome of interest? 

• How does each outcome differ before and after federal SLC funding? 

• Do trajectories of change vary among schools? 

The analyses discussed in Chapter 5 focus on the use of growth curve modeling within a hierarchical 

linear mixed model (HLM). In practice, this entails the modeling of trends in outcomes over time, 

based on the repeated observations within each school, with the assumption that the underlying 

functional form of the trends is linear.3

Because trends are modeled and compared before and after SLC funds were received, the effects of 

four variables are estimated for each outcome. 

• Intercept: the value of the outcome of interest in the year prior to receiving the SLC 

grant; 

• Time: the rate of change of the outcome of interest during the pre-grant period; 

• Difference: the “jump” in the outcome between the pre- and post-funding periods;4

and 

• Difference*Time: the difference in the rate of change between the pre- and postfunding periods. 

 

3

 The validity of this assumption was explored through the examination of individual school-level growth plots. 

Through this examination, it was determined that the use of linear models was appropriate. 

4

 We use the term “jump” here to refer to the difference between the model intercept and the average value of 

the outcome in the post-grant period. 
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-4 

Model Specification 

Using HLM, models here were specified at two levels: within schools (Level 1) and between schools 

(Level 2). 

Level 1: Within School Model 

ij i i ij i ij i ij ij Y = + TIME + DIFFERENCE + DIFFERENCE *TIME + r π 0 π 1 π 2 π 3

Where 

π0i = the value of the outcome of interest for school i in the year prior to receiving the SLC grant

(intercept); 

π1iTIMEij = the rate of change of the outcome of interest for school i during the pre-grant period; 

π2iDIFFERENCEij = the “jump” in the outcome between pre- and post-funding periods for school 

i; 

π3iDIFFERENCE*TIMEij = the difference in the rate of change between the pre- and post-funding 

periods for school i; and 

rij = residual difference between the actual and estimated school value i at time j, assumed to 

represent measurement error. 

Level 2: Between-School Model 

i i

i i

i i

i i

u

u

u

u

3 30 3

2 20 2

1 10 0

0 00 0

= +

= +

= +

= +

π β

π β

π β

π β

Where 

β00 = the average value of the outcome of interest in the year prior to receiving the SLC grant; 

u0i = the difference between the average and individual value in the year prior to receiving the 

SLC grant for school i; 

β10 = the average rate of change in the outcome of interest during the pre-grant period; 

u1i = the difference between the average and individual average rate of change during the pregrant period for school i; 

β20 = the average “jump” in the outcome between pre- and post-funding periods; 

u2i = the difference between the average and individual “jump” in the outcome between pre- and 

post-funding periods for school i; 

β30 = the average difference in the rate of change between the pre- and post-funding periods; and 

u3i = the difference between the average and individual rate of change between the pre- and postfunding periods for school i. 
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-5 

Together, the Level 1 and Level 2 Models result in the following combined model: 

i i ij i ij i ij ij

ij ij ij ij

u u TIME u DIFFERENCE u DIFFERENCE TIME r

Y TIME DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE TIME

+ + + + +

= + + +

*

*

0 1 2 3

β 00 β10 β 20 β 30

 

As is evident in this combined model, this mixed model results in two sets of results. First, the fixed 

(or average) effects: 

β 00 + β10TIMEij + β 20DIFFERENCEij + β 30DIFFERENCE *TIMEij , 

representing the average growth curve or the average trend over time. Secondly, the random (or 

difference) effects: 

u0i + u1iTIMEij + u2iDIFFERENCEij + u3iDIFFERENCE *TIMEij , 

representing the variation of individual school estimates from each of the fixed effects. These 

random effects are examined to see whether or not individual schools vary significantly from each 

other with respect to each of the estimated coefficients in the model. 
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-6 

Centering Time 

For ease of interpretation, the intercept term was centered within the range of the data, i.e., on school 

year 1999–2000, or the last year prior to the distribution of SLC grant funds to schools. Interpretation 

of this and other terms is illustrated in the example that follows: 

Interpretation Example 

Using participation in extracurricular activities as an example, we present the fixed and random 

effects estimates from our statistical modeling procedure (see Exhibits I.1 and I.2). The intercept 

estimate tells us that at time = “0”, the average value of extracurricular is 43.1. In other words, at the 

last year prior to receiving the SLC grant (SY 1999-2000), the average percentage of students in 

extracurricular activities was 43 percent. In addition, this form varied significantly among schools, 

ranging from a low of 10 percent to a high of 96 percent (see Exhibit I.2). 

The coefficient for “time” is 0.67. This is the estimate of the time slope when “difference” is equal to 

zero (i.e., pre-SLC grant). Thus, on average, there was a little over a half a percentage point 

increase per year in extracurricular activities during the pre-SLC grant phase. The small increase 

over time was not statistically significantly different from 0. We conclude, therefore, that the slope for 

the period prior to receiving the SLC grant was flat. 

The coefficient for the “difference” term is 5.24. The difference effect refers to the post-SLC grant 

intercept difference. This means that the post-SLC grant participation in extracurricular activities was 

on average 5.2 percentage points higher than pre-SLC grant participation. This increase was 

statistically significant (p < 0.05), and we therefore conclude that relative to the pre-SLC grant years, 

average participation in extracurricular activities was higher during the post-SLC grant years. This 

difference term also varied significantly across schools, ranging from a low of –8.4 percentage points 

to a high of 43.5 percentage points. 

The coefficient for “difference*time” tells us the difference between the pre-SLC grant time slope and 

the post-SLC grant time slope. The value of this coefficient is −0.19; thus, the post-SLC grant slope 

is a little flatter (less positive) than the pre-SLC grant slope. The estimate of the post-SLC grant slope 

is calculated as (time + time*difference), which is equal to 0.67 − 0.19 = 0.48. This estimate 

represents a rather flat increase of about a half a percentage point per year, which is not statistically 

significant. This difference in slopes, however, varied significantly across schools, ranging from a low 

of –23.4 percentage points to a high of 16.4 percentage points. 

We thus conclude that the average level of participation in extracurricular activities during the postSLC grant period was statistically significantly greater than during the pre-grant period, but that the 

change in participation over time during the post-grant period was not significantly different from the 

change over time during the pre-grant period. 
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-7 

Exhibit I.1 

Estimates of Fixed Effects From School-Level Growth Modelsa

 Examining Change in Various 

Academic and Behavioral Outcomes Between the 1997–97 and 2002–03 School Years

 Parameter Estimate 

Outcome Intercept Timeb Difference 

Difference*

Time 

Percent students at or above proficiency in 

reading (n=35) 

58.37***‡ −1.23* 3.57‡ n.a. 

Percent students at or above proficiency in 

mathematics (n=31) 

48.43***‡ −3.48** 12.45* n.a. 

Percent students at or above 50th percentile 

on SAT9 in reading (CA only) (n=27) 

29.81***‡ n.a. 2.00** n.a. 

Percent students at or above 50th percentile 

on SAT9 in mathematics (CA only) (n=27) 

42.50***‡ 2.33*** −3.25* n.a. 

Percentage of students in grades 11 and 12 

taking ACT (n=64) 

15.22***‡ 0.65** 1.93‡ −1.22‡ 

Percentage of students in grades 11 and 12 

taking SAT (n=90) 

19.47***‡ 0.46* −0.36‡ 1.39‡ 

Total SAT score (n=89) 951.52***‡ 0.39 −11.27‡ 2.11‡ 

Total ACT score (n=70) 19.49***‡ 0.07 0.05‡ −0.26*‡ 

Promotion rate from 9th to 10th grade (n=116) 81.40***‡ −0.28 −2.76‡ 2.33*‡ 

Graduation rate based on 9th grade enrollment 

four years prior of graduating cohort (n=69) 

54.58***‡ 2.11*‡ −4.12*‡ n.a. 

Graduation rate, based on 12th grade 

enrollment of graduating cohort (n=114) 

88.88***‡ 0.63 −1.75 0.50‡ 

Percent students simultaneously enrolled in 

secondary and college-level courses (n=86) 

4.84***‡ 0.70***‡ 2.06** −1.71***‡ 

Percent graduates intending to attend 2- or 4-

year college (n=77) 

64.79***‡ n.a. 4.30***‡ n.a. 

Average daily attendance (n=88) 89.86***‡ 0.34***‡ n.a. n.a. 

Percent students involved in extracurricular 

activities (n=78) 

43.09***‡ 0.67 5.24*‡ −0.19‡ 

Incidence of school violence per 100 students 

(n=100) 

5.85***‡ 0.08‡ −1.47* 0.08‡ 

Incidence of alcohol and/or drug use per 100 

students (n=93) 

1.62***‡ −0.07‡ n.a. n.a. 

Incidence of disciplinary action per 100 

students (n=113) 

26.94***‡ −1.37‡ 1.57‡ −0.07‡ 

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 

‡Significant variation among schools as evidenced by random effect in mixed growth curve model. 

n.a. Estimate not significantly different from zero and dropped from statistical model. 

Notes: a Models presented are result of comprehensive model-building process. Those presented provide the best-fitting and 

most parsimonious representation of each outcome variable. 

 b Time centered on 2000-2001 school year, the first year of SLC implementation as supported by the federal SLC grant.
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-8 Exhibit I.2 Estimates of Random Effects From School-Level Growth Models,a Examining Change in Various Academic and Be

Between the 1996–97 and 2002–03 School Years Outcome Mean Minimum 25th Percentile Median 7

Per

Percent students at or above proficiency in reading (

n=35)

 Intercept  Difference 

58.37 

3.57 

11.99 

−54.42 

25.90 

−0.73 

68.71 

4.84 

81

Percent students at or above proficiency in mathematics (n=31)  Intercept 48.43 19.29 40.00 47.49 5Percent students at or above 50th percentile on SAT9 in reading (CA only) (

n=27) 

 Intercept 29.81 6.59 16.31 27.42 4Percent students at or above 50th percentile on SAT9 in mathematics (

n=27) 

 Intercept 42.50 13.29 27.51 41.12 5Percent students in grades 11 and 12 taking ACT (

n=64) 

 Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

15.22 

1.93 

−1.22 

1.70 

−40.53 −39.22 

6.99 

−1.56 −2.17 

14.11 

0.07 

−1.01 

2

Percent students in grades 11 and 12 taking SAT (

n=90) 

 Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

19.47 

−0.36 

1.39 

3.04 

−25.83 

−6.62 

13.82 

−1.48 −0.99 

19.38 

0.43 0.24 

2

Total SAT score (

n=89) 

 Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

951.52 

−11.27 

2.11 

726.01 

−541.88 

−74.93 

875.96 

−27.18 

−5.71 

953.77 

−7.86 

1.20 

103

 
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-9 Exhibit I.2 (continued) Estimates of Random Effects from School-Level Growth Models,a Examining Change in Various Academic and Be

Between the 1996–97 and 2002–03 School Years Outcome Mean Minimum 25th Percentile Median 7

Per

Total ACT score (

n=70) 

 Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

19.49 

0.05 

−0.26 

14.55 

−1.41 −3.45 

17.89 

−0.49 −0.37 

19.83 

−0.08 −0.18 

2

−

Promotion rate from 9th to 10th grade (

n=116) 

 Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

81.40 

−2.76 

2.33 

43.93 

−64.76 −14.85 

73.06 

−5.60 −0.35 

85.01 

−0.15 

0.86 

9

Graduation rate based on 9th-grade enrollment four years prior of graduating cohort (

n=69) 

 Intercept  Timeb

 Difference 

54.58 

2.11 

−4.12 

7.45 

−3.51 

−43.23 

41.24 

0.87 

−5.65 

56.61 

1.70 

−3.15 

7

−

Graduation rate, based on 12th-grade enrollment of graduating cohort (

n=114) 

 Intercept  Difference*Time 

88.88 

0.50 

53.82 

−3.26 

85.04 

−0.40 

91.06 

0.24 

9

Percent students simultaneously enrolled in secondary and college-level courses (

n=86) 

 Intercept  Timeb

 Difference*Time 

4.84 0.70 

−1.71 

0.53 

−0.63 −4.76 

0.95 0.48 

−1.82 

1.79 0.56 

−1.68 

−

Percent graduates intending to attend two- or four-year college (

n=77) 

 Intercept  Difference 64.79 

4.30 

35.80 

−6.49 

55.16 

2.37 

66.18 

4.14 

7
Appendix I: Modeling of Pre and Post Differences in APR Outcomes I-10 Exhibit I.2 (continued) Estimates of Random Effects from School-Level Growth Models,a Examining Change in Various Academic and Be

Between the 1996–97 and 2002–03 School Years Outcome Mean Minimum 25th Percentile Median 7

Per

Average daily attendance (

n=88) 

 Intercept  Timeb

89.86 

0.34 

70.73 

−0.84 

87.04 

0.03 

91.61 

0.20 

9

Percent students involved in extracurricular activities (n=78)  Intercept  Difference  Difference*Time 

43.09 

5.24 

−0.19 

10.35 

−8.35 

−23.39 

25.25 

−0.49 −2.92 

41.94 

3.26 0.16 

5

Incidence of school violence per 100 students (

n=100) 

 Intercept  Timeb

 Difference*Time 

5.85 0.08 0.08 

1.77 

−9.38 −5.20 

3.73 

−0.18 −0.47 

4.75 0.20 

−0.04 

Incidence of alcohol and/or drug use per 100 students (n=93)  Intercept  Timeb

1.62 

−0.07 

0.46 

−0.92 

1.02 

−0.15 

1.37 

−0.01 

Incidence of disciplinary action per 100 students (

n=113) 

 Intercept  Timeb

 Difference  Difference*Time 

26.94 

−1.37 

1.57 

−0.07 

0.23 

−22.75 −42.74 −31.77 

11.04 

−2.14 −4.59 −4.20 

17.76 

−0.94 

1.62 0.60 

3

Notes: a Models presented are result of comprehensive model-building process. Those presented provide the best-fitting and most parsimonious repr

variable. 

 b Time centered on 2000-2001 school year, the first year of SLC implementation as supported by the federal SLC grant.
 
 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for 

global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access 

www.ed.gov