Early Implementation Report: 

Mentoring, Educational, and 

Employment Strategies to 

Improve Academic, Social, 

and Career Pathways in 

Persistently Dangerous 

Schools – Generation I 

Final 

December 20, 2010 

Prepared by: 

Heather Lewis-Charp 

Sukey Soukamneuth Leshnick 

Anna Rubin 

 Kimberly Foley 

Charles Lea 

Prepared for: 

Gloria Salas-Kos 

Dan Ryan 

U.S. Department of Labor/ETA 

200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20210 

Contract No. DOLJ061A20362 

SPR Project No. 1361 

This project has been funded, 

either wholly or in part, with 

Federal funds from the 

Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, under Contract 

Number DOLJ061A20362. The 

contents of this publication do not 

necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the Department of 

Labor, nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, or 

organizations imply endorsement 

of same by the U.S. Government. 

S O CIA L P O L ICY R ESEA R C H 

A SS O CIATE S 

1330 Broadway, Suite 1426 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Tel: (510) 763-1499 

Fax: (510) 763-1599 

www.spra.com 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... ES-1
 

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... I-1
 

Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................I-2
 

Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................I-4
 

Overview of the Remainder of this Report ......................................................................I-8
 

II. OVERVIEW OF INITIATIVE ................................................................................. II-1
 

Service Design ...............................................................................................................II-1
 

Timeline.......................................................................................................................... II-4
 

Key Players .................................................................................................................... II-6
 

Characteristics of the Schools ......................................................................................II-12
 

Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................II-17
 

III. GRANT IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................... III-1
 

Budget........................................................................................................................... III-1
 

Staffing .......................................................................................................................... III-8
 

Leadership ..................................................................................................................III-15
 

Contractors..................................................................................................................III-20
 

Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................III-24
 

IV. EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES...........................................................................IV-1
 

Overview of Educational Strategies ............................................................................. IV-1
 

Hiring New Teachers.................................................................................................... IV-5
 

Increasing Teacher Effectiveness .............................................................................. IV-11
 

Remediating Poor Academic Achievement................................................................ IV-13
 

Facilitating Credit Retrieval ........................................................................................ IV-16
 

Reconstituting Schools as Academies ....................................................................... IV-19
 

Providing Instructional and Curricular Supports ......................................................... IV-25
 

i 
Offering Summer Programs ....................................................................................... IV-26
 

Challenges and Lessons Learned.............................................................................. IV-33
 

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. IV-34
 

V. MENTORING AND SCHOOL CLIMATE STRATEGIES ......................................V-1
 

Mentoring Programs...................................................................................................... V-1
 

School Climate Strategies........................................................................................... V-22
 

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................. V-35
 

VI. EMPLOYMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .............................VI-1
 

Budget.......................................................................................................................... VI-1
 

Overview of Employment Strategies ............................................................................ VI-2
 

Three Employment Strategies ...................................................................................... VI-7
 

Challenges in Implementing Employment Strategies ................................................. VI-22
 

Overview of Case Management Strategies ................................................................ VI-23
 

Three Case Management Strategies ......................................................................... VI-27
 

Case Management Challenges .................................................................................. VI-30
 

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. VI-31
 

VII. EVIDENCE OF SCHOOL CHANGE ..................................................................VII-1
 

Data............................................................................................................................. VII-1
 

Overview of School Change ........................................................................................ VII-2
 

Changes in School Climate ......................................................................................... VII-3
 

Changes in Academic Performance .......................................................................... VII-15
 

Changes in School Culture ....................................................................................... VII-26
 

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ VII-29
 

Challenges Documenting and Achieving Outcomes ................................................. VII-31
 

VIII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................VIII-1
 

Key Accomplishments................................................................................................ VIII-1
 

Key Challenges .......................................................................................................... VIII-5
 

Implications of Findings .............................................................................................. VIII-7
 

APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................... A-1
 

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................. B-1
 

APPENDIX C: TABLE OF DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................ C-1
 

APPENDIX D: TABLE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS....................... D-1
 

ii 
 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provided funding to nine schools in the form of 

the Mentoring, Educational, and Employment Strategies to Improve Academic, Social, and 

Career Pathway Outcomes in Persistently Dangerous Schools Grants (MEES grants). As 

indicated in the grant title, these nine schools had been designated as “persistently dangerous” 

under the Unsafe School Choice Option of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).1 The central goal of 

the MEES grants is to reduce violence within these schools by combining mentoring, 

educational, employment, case management, and violence-prevention strategies for positive 

school change. The schools are using the grant to restructure themselves in ways that expand the 

levels of services provided to students and enhance coordination of these services within the 

schools and their communities. 

DOL contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) to evaluate how these nine 

schools have planned, designed, and implemented programs, interventions, and services under 

the MEES grants. This Early Implementation Report of the Mentoring, Educational, and 

Employment Strategies to Improve Academic, Social, and Career Pathways in Persistently 

Dangerous Schools – Generation I presents the evaluation’s findings as of the end of the first 

year of grant implementation, school year (SY) 2009–2010. The report describes, in depth, the 

strategies that schools are using to improve school climate and increase academic achievement 

and summarizes grantees’ accomplishments and challenges. This evaluation is an early 

implementation study that relies heavily on qualitative data gathered from nearly thirty telephone 

interviews and four rounds of site visits to each school. The evaluation also draws on 

quantitative data from management information system (MIS) reports, the School District of 

Philadelphia (SDP), and the Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN). 

These schools are Berkshire Junior/Senior High School in New Canaan, NY; W.E.B. Du Bois HS in Baltimore, 

MD; and the following schools in Philadelphia, PA: John Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, Germantown HS, 

Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS, University HS, and West Philadelphia HS. 

ES-1 

1 
 

 

Overview of the MEES Grant 

A number of key institutional players are involved in designing, supporting, and implementing 

the grant-funded programs. These key players include school districts (the grant recipients), 

schools, and contractors. 

Three school districts are MEES grant recipients. The School District of Philadelphia (SDP), the 

largest of the three districts, is made up of 284 schools, seven of which are participating in the 

MEES initiative. In 2009, SDP received an influx of stimulus funding, and as a result, the 

overall budget of SDP schools rose independently of the MEES grant in SY 2008–2009 and SY 

2009–2010. Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) enrolls more than 80,000 students, but only 

one of BCPS’s schools—Du Bois HS—is participating in the MEES initiative. Berkshire 

Unified Free School District (BUFSD) is a small, rural district with only one school. BUFSD 

serves exclusively male students who are referred to the district by their home school districts, 

the Department of Social Services, or the courts because they are a threat to themselves or 

someone else or because of behavioral problems. 

Although the district is the grant recipient for each of the nine MEES schools, the level of 

oversight and leadership each district provides for the grant varies. BCPS has taken a fairly 

hands-off role with the MEES grant, as the grant is being managed at the school level. SDP 

plays a much larger role in grant administration and oversight than do the other districts; it is 

responsible for providing fiscal oversight for the grants, developing the Request for 

Qualifications (RFQ) for community-based organizations (CBOs) that will serve as contractors, 

hiring staff members, selecting curriculum, and providing technical assistance to the schools. 

Seven of the nine schools involved in the MEES grants—Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, 

Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS— 

are part of SDP. The remaining two schools—Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS—are part of 

BUFSD and BCPS respectively. All the schools were eligible for the grant because they were 

designated as “persistently dangerous” and all failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress under 

NCLB for SY 2009–2010.2

 With the exception of Berkshire JSHS, all are non-selective 

neighborhood schools. Grant leadership at each school is typically three-tiered, with the 

principal, Turnaround Assistant Principal/grant administrator (hereby referred to as the TAP), 

and Turnaround Team all playing roles. 

Each state sets it own standards for AYP based on standardized test scores in reading/language arts and math and 

graduation rates. 

ES-2 

2 
 

 

 

 

The schools funded by the grant share certain common challenges that influence and provide a 

context for MEES grant implementation. All of the schools except Du Bois HS have had 

declining enrollment in recent years. Enrollment at three of the schools—Berkshire JSHS, 

University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS—dropped by 30 or more percent between SY 

2007–2008 SY and SY 2009–2010. Most of the schools have large numbers of repeating ninth 

graders—those who did not earn sufficient credits to be promoted to the tenth grade in the 

previous year. The schools also have high rates of student mobility. Across the grant-funded 

schools, the student populations are predominantly African American, low-income, and male. 

Grantee schools contracted with a number of CBOs to implement interventions under the MEES 

grant. In total, more than 25 contractors are providing services under the MEES grant, although 

the depth and intensity of their involvement vary greatly. Each school is working with between 

one and nine contractors, with some contractors providing services in multiple strategies at one 

school. 

Grant Implementation 

DOL used PY 2007 and PY 2008 funds to provide initial grants of $6.4 million to the seven 

larger schools and $3.7 million to the two smaller schools to cover a planning period and two 

years of operation. DOL subsequently used PY 2009 funds to provide partial third year funds of 

$960,000 to the larger schools and $546,000 to the smaller schools, with plans to use PY 2010 

funds to provide the remaining third-year funds. An analysis of schools’ planned budgets shows 

that schools planned to direct the majority of their funding to personnel and fringe costs (52 

percent on average).3 Contracts make up the next largest category of spending (35 percent of 

budgets on average) and expenditures for supplies, travel, and other/indirect charges together 

make up less than one-eighth (12 percent) of the average budget. On average, schools budgeted 

the bulk of their grants for education reforms and interventions (42 percent of the average 

budget) and employment/case management services (25 percent).4 Relatively little funding is 

going to school climate strategies (8 percent) and mentoring strategies (6 percent). In addition to 

funding for services, reforms, and interventions, schools budgeted up to one third of the grant for 

administration, which includes costs for planning and for the salary of the grant administrator. 

3	 The evaluation team only had access to “planned budgets” and therefore could not do an analysis of expenditures 

to date. 

4	 Because the employment and case management budgets are not easily parsed out for the seven Philadelphia 

schools, we have combined these categories when discussing budget and staffing. 

ES-3 
In the first year of grant implementation, the MEES grant increased services and reduced class 

sizes through an increase in staffing at each of the schools. Schools hired a total of 140 full-time 

staff members and 62 part-time staff members to manage and implement programs under the 

MEES grant for year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010). While each school hired, on 

average, 16 full-time staff members and seven part-time staff members, there was great variation 

in the total number of staff members hired at each school. New staffing levels vary due to the 

size of the grant each school received, the approach that each school took to implementing grant 

reforms (i.e., investing heavily in curriculum or student incentives versus investing in additional 

staff members), and the success each school had in hiring for grant-funded positions. 

In the guidelines for the grant, DOL encouraged the use of a competitive process for selecting 

sub-grantees or contractors, and grantees have generally taken this approach. SDP did not 

release its own RFQ for mentoring, education, and career coordination/student employment 

contractors until September 2009. As a result, while some partners were able to start in the 

Philadelphia schools in late 2009, most programs at these schools were not fully up and running 

until well into 2010. Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS, which both worked mainly with CBOs 

with whom they had strong pre-existing relationships, were able to ramp-up partnerships more 

quickly, although Du Bois HS did face some initial delays in getting contracts signed. 

Educational Strategies 

The MEES grant provides an opportunity for grantee schools to develop educational reforms and 

interventions that address students’ educational barriers and strengthen instructional practices. 

Consistent with DOL’s expectations for the MEES grant, schools are implementing educational 

interventions that involve the whole school, while targeting specific groups of at-risk youth such 

as entering and repeating ninth graders and youth who are failing classes or struggling to keep up 

with the demands of high school. In order to achieve the educational goals of the grant, MEES 

schools are hiring new teachers, increasing teacher effectiveness, remediating poor academic 

performance, facilitating credit retrieval, reconstituting schools as academies, providing 

instructional and curricular supports, and offering summer programs. 

Schools hired new teachers to reduce class sizes and also to fill under-resourced positions in 

subject areas such as science and foreign language. A total of 74 teachers have been hired as a 

result of the grant, with some schools planning to hire more teachers in SY 2010–2011. The 

hiring of new teachers generally resulted in lower student-teacher ratios, which now range from 

4:1 to 16:1. Grant resources were also used to increase teacher effectiveness by funding 

professional development activities and salaries for instructional coaches who guide and mentor 

teachers. 

ES-4 
 

 

Schools are seeking to remediate poor academic performance through remedial classes and 

through programs that help students succeed at their regular classes. These services are 

delivered in a variety of ways, as part of the school day and through extended learning time after 

school. Students can also attend remedial classes after school through designated programs, and 

they can use the computers at the Student Success Centers (SSCs) to access online curricula that 

are geared towards academic remediation and tutoring. 

Schools used the grant to facilitate credit retrieval so that students can get back on track towards 

graduation. Credit retrieval courses are available through Saturday School, afterschool classes, 

or Twilight Schools. 

Schools leveraged grant resources to support their efforts to reconstitute themselves as 

academies. The Ninth Grade Success Academies and career academies are designed as small, 

personalized learning communities with specialized curricula that emphasize academic rigor and 

preparation for college using career-related themes. Six schools implemented the Ninth Grade 

Academies in SY 2009–2010. Some of the Ninth Grade Academies pre-date the MEES grant, 

but the MEES grant is contributing to small class sizes in the Ninth Grade Academies and 

funding instructional coaches who are devoted to assisting ninth grade teachers. The influence 

of the grant on the career academies is generally small at this time; the grant is providing 

enrichment activities and support (i.e., field trips, incentives) rather than influencing academies’ 

structures. 

Schools are also using the grant to purchase a number of instructional and curricular supports to 

aid the implementation of key reforms. These supports include supplemental curricula, 

technology and equipment, student incentives and rewards, and enrichment activities. Many of 

these supports—such as curricula specialized for credit retrieval and the Talent Development 

program—benefited ninth graders. Others, such as technology for school leaders and teachers 

and field trips for students in the career academies, benefited the entire school. 

Finally, schools offered summer programs to 947 students in the summer of 2010, an increase 

from 681 students in the summer of 2009.5

 The structure of the summer programs in 

Philadelphia changed in 2010, with the SDP playing a more hands-on role in their design. 

Students in Philadelphia were required to spend more hours per day on reading and math, and as 

a result, less time was available for enrichment activities. Students at Du Bois HS were required 

to spend three hours per day on academics, essentially double the time required in the summer of 

2009. 

The 2009 enrollment number does not include students at Berkshire JSHS. 

ES-5 

5 
Mentoring Strategies 

Eight of the nine MEES schools have developed school-based mentoring programs to improve 

the educational and social outcomes of individual students as well as the overall climate of the 

schools. The goal of school-based mentoring is to help students develop positive relationships 

with adults who can help them stay on track. 

All nine grantees held a competitive bid process to identify a CBO partner to operate the 

mentoring component of the grant. Schools identified providers in fall 2009 and these partners 

were in the schools by the beginning of 2010, though in some cases the contract was not 

finalized until May or June of 2010. Although specific roles vary, mentoring providers are 

responsible for recruiting and training mentors and mentees, organizing events, overseeing 

mentor/mentee relationships, and generally managing the daily operations of the mentoring 

program. 

Each school has planned to recruit between 50 and 135 students as mentees, targeting primarily 

students with a range of personal, social, and academic characteristics. At least four schools are 

targeting ninth grade students identified as being at risk of dropping out of school or students 

with behavioral or academic challenges. Other schools, however, are extending their recruiting 

efforts to all ninth graders, with a particular focus on “middle of the road” students who may not 

be part of specific groups targeted for other interventions. To date, many of the programs have 

relied on mass recruitment efforts such as school-wide announcements or flyers, which result in 

students referring themselves to the program. At the time of the third site visit, more than 200 

mentees had been recruited to participate in the mentoring programs. 

At eight of the nine schools, adult mentors can be teachers, school staff members, or adults from 

the community. Berkshire JSHS is unique in that it is targeting adults who live in the students’ 

home communities, so that students will have adult mentors when they transition back home 

from the Berkshire JSHS residential center. All program staff members are looking to recruit 

adult mentors who are positive role models, who match students’ demographics, and who meet 

the eligibility requirements (e.g., pass FBI clearance, do not have a felony charge, are old 

enough, etc.). Although mentoring staff members have been successful in recruiting schoolbased mentors such as faculty and staff, community adult mentors have been very difficult to 

recruit. At the time of the first site visit, schools had recruited 127 adult mentors, most of whom 

are school staff members. Recruiting adult community mentors has been challenging because (1) 

the screening process is rigorous and time-intensive, (2) many potential mentors are not 

interested in mentoring older adolescent youth, (3) and it is difficult finding community adults 

who can volunteer during school hours (as opposed to weekends or evenings). In addition to 

ES-6 
these challenges, most schools are also having difficulty finding enough male mentors to match 

with their male student mentees. 

Although the adult mentoring component is not yet fully implemented, mentoring program staff 

members have developed a program structure, guidelines, and expectations to manage the 

relationships, keep both parties safe, and maximize the effectiveness of the relationship within 

the realistic limits of the program. Adult mentors commit to spending approximately five hours 

per month (approximately one hour per week) with their mentees. The meetings generally take 

place at school during or immediately after the school day, for safety and liability reasons. Adult 

mentors are required to keep a regular log of their interactions with their mentees. In addition, 

mentoring staff members call mentors and mentees on a regular basis to ensure that the program 

is meeting their expectations and that they are getting the support they need, and to see if any 

program elements need improvement. 

 Most schools have peer mentoring, group mentoring, and service learning aspects to their 

programs that are designed to supplement the one-on-one mentoring relationship with an adult. 

The supplemental program elements are designed to provide additional support to students and to 

give mentees and mentors opportunities to interact in different settings. The most common of 

these supplemental programs is peer mentoring. Seven schools are recruiting peer mentors, who 

are students in eleventh or twelfth grade who are in good standing academically and who staff 

members believe will have a positive influence on the mentees. At the time of the third site visit, 

schools had recruited 116 peer mentors. 

School Climate Strategies 

One of the MEES grant’s primary goals is to improve school climate, with the specific aim of 

reducing the number of violent incidents in the schools, especially those that count toward the 

“Persistently Dangerous School” status. To work toward realizing this goal, MEES schools have 

adopted a variety of approaches designed to increase attendance, increase students’ and teachers’ 

sense of safety, create an environment conducive to learning, and make overall institutional 

improvements that foster a sense of ownership and school pride. 

School climate interventions are varied across the schools. They include hiring dedicated 

climate staff members, providing professional development for staff members, and instituting 

specific programs such as peer mediation, incentive programs, in-school suspension, and Rites of 

Passage programs. To date, hiring climate staff has been the most frequently implemented 

climate strategy, with five schools having hired climate managers or Behavioral Management 

Specialists. Peer mediation is the next most common intervention; it is being launched at five 

SDP schools, though three of the programs had yet to launch as of spring 2010. Three schools 

ES-7 
 

 

were funding professional development for staff, two had developed incentive programs for 

students, and two schools were funding Rites of Passage programs. 

Employment Strategies 

All schools have developed contracts with CBO service providers to provide employment 

interventions. Du Bois HS contracted with the City of Baltimore Mayor’s Office of Employment 

Development (MOED) to operate the Career Connections program and the FUTURES Works 

program.6

 Berkshire JSHS has fee-for-service contracts with a CBO partner (Berkshire Farms) 

that provides classroom and hands-on training to students in key internship areas (e.g., culinary 

arts, carpentry, horticulture, etc.), as well as supervision when students are at their internship 

placements. The SDP contracted with the Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN) to manage the 

Student Success Centers, which are employment and case management centers. PYN, in turn, 

subcontracted with individual CBO service providers who are responsible for hiring employment 

and case management staff members and providing employment-related services at each of the 

seven SDP schools. 

The seven SDP schools are implementing school-based employment and case management 

activities at their SSCs. Three of the schools (Lincoln HS, Germantown HS, and FitzSimons 

HS) used grant funds to develop entirely new SSCs, while the remaining four schools used the 

grant to expand already-existing centers. SSCs are located in a dedicated space within each 

school, are open between 7:30 am and 4:30 pm, and can be accessed by students on their own 

before school, during lunch periods, and after school. Each SSC is equipped with computer 

workstations, furniture, whiteboards, and other technology and resources. One school leader 

described the SSC as a “one-stop shop” where students can receive career readiness and life 

skills training, college preparation support and academic tutoring, counseling, and community 

referrals. Each school served at least 50 percent of its school population through the SSC 

between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2010, with two schools serving at least 80 percent of their 

students during this time period. 

Across all sites, the goal of employment interventions is to provide students with the knowledge 

and skills needed to obtain employment and/or enter post-secondary education, as well as to 

create opportunities for them to obtain hands-on training and work experience in occupations of 

FUTURES Works is a dropout prevention program that provides daily comprehensive services to ninth-grade 

students. This program is housed in a large classroom at Du Bois HS, and is a collaborative effort between 

Baltimore City Schools, MOED, and Baltimore Rising. 

ES-8 

6 
 

 

interest. To further these aims, schools are supporting career development, placing students into 

internships, and promoting college access. 

All schools are supporting career development in order to make students aware of the 

educational requirements of various careers and provide students with sufficient job readiness 

training. To support career development, schools sponsored job shadow days, provided 

individual career advising (career inventories and assessments, work permit assistance), and 

organized and facilitated job preparation workshops. Between 15 and 69 percent of all students 

at SDP schools received career development and exploration services.7 Schools that reached a 

high percentage of the school population conducted more large-scale career events than did 

schools that reached a lower percentage of the school population; these latter schools focused 

more on providing individual advising. 

All nine schools are targeting eleventh and twelfth graders for internships. Nearly all schools 

place a priority on finding internships for eleventh- and twelfth-grade students who are “work 

ready” and who have a track record of positive behavior and academic performance. Du Bois 

HS has by far the highest percentage of students who completed an internship in SY 2009–2010 

(20 percent). Through the Career Connections program, 88 percent of twelfth graders and 79 

percent of eleventh graders at Du Bois completed an internship. Berkshire JSHS enrolled 64 

students in on-campus internships in areas such as carpentry, horticulture and farming, 

maintenance, business, and culinary arts. In the SDP schools, the percentage of students who 

enrolled in internships varied from one to nine percent of all students. In Philadelphia, PYN 

draws on its large network of employers to develop a pool of internships for students at the 

MEES schools and other high schools throughout Philadelphia. The SDP schools that placed the 

highest percentage of students into internships did not rely exclusively on PYN internships, 

however, but also developed their own internship placements for students. 

Only the seven SDP schools indicate that promoting college access is a core grant-funded 

employment strategy. In order to promote college access, SDP schools provided college 

exposure activities (college fairs, college visits), college application assistance, and financial aid 

counseling. These activities generally target eleventh and twelfth graders, in an effort to support 

their immediate post-secondary plans, but are also made available to ninth and tenth graders. 

Five of the SDP schools engaged at least 25 percent of their school populations in interventions 

to promote college access. The most common type of service provided was college application 

Comparable data are not available for Du Bois HS and Berkshire JSHS. 

ES-9 

7 
assistance, which includes working one-on-one with students to help them fill out college 

applications, register for the SAT/ACT, and develop college and scholarship essays. 

Case Management Strategies 

Case management staff members are responsible for conducting needs assessments of students, 

developing and implementing service plans, making referrals, and providing behavioral support 

and crisis management to students. All nine schools are supporting at least three case 

management positions to provide individualized support to at-risk students. Of the MEES 

schools, Du Bois HS has invested most heavily in case management; it has hired seven full-time 

case management staff persons, including a substance abuse counselor, a mental health clinician, 

and an anger management specialist. Berkshire JSHS has used the grant to hire Behavioral 

Management Specialist (BMSs), who serve as liaisons between teachers and other mental health 

staff. All seven SDP schools house three grant-funded case management staff members in the 

schools’ SSCs. 

As the core of their case management strategies, the MEES schools are providing group and 

individual counseling and using a team-based case management approach to address problems 

with attendance and behavior. The number of students who received one-on-one case 

management services in SY 2009–2010 varied by school. Berkshire JSHS provided all students 

with case management, due to the high-risk nature of its population. At Du Bois HS, 

approximately 13 percent of the school population received case management. At the SDP 

schools, the number of students receiving one-on-one case management or mental health 

counseling at any one time generally ranged from 15 to 40 students per school, with the total 

number of students served not exceeding 100. In general, a much larger group of students 

participated in group counseling interventions. 

Evidence of School Change 

There are several key indicators of school change highlighted in the report: average daily 

attendance (ADA); the number of “serious” incidents that count towards PDS status; the rate of 

suspension, expulsion and arrest, course completion, and promotion among ninth graders; and 

standardized test scores. 

Increasing ADA is integral to improving academic performance in low-performing schools. 

Although overall ADA remains very low at the MEES schools, six of the nine schools show 

marginal increases in ADA. More promising, given the MEES grants’ intensive focus on ninthgrade students, is the fact that ADA for ninth graders rose more than for the overall population at 

five of the six schools for which we have ninth-grade attendance data. Additionally, with the 

ES-10 
exception of one school, all SDP schools decreased the percentage of students who were absent 

54 days or more. 

Another primary goal of the MEES grant is to reduce the level of violence at the schools, 

including the rate of incidents that lead to suspensions. Five schools reduced the number of 

serious incidents counting towards PDS status, so much so that three of these schools were 

removed from the PDS list at the end of the first year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

In addition, five schools reduced the suspension rate from SY 2007–2008 to SY 2009–2010, with 

the most significant declines occurring at Berkshire JSHS, West Philadelphia HS, Germantown 

HS, and Du Bois HS. School leaders at these schools attribute the positive shifts in climate to 

the additional educational staff members hired by the MEES grant, saying that there are fewer 

disciplinary referrals and suspensions because teachers have better control of their classrooms. 

The evaluation findings on ninth-grade course completion are decidedly mixed. Although the 

percentage of ninth graders who failed three or more subjects declined for all but one of the 

schools for which we have data, the failure rates for English and math show inconsistent results. 

These results are somewhat surprising given the intensive focus that most of the schools placed 

on English and math. Changes in the curriculum and the structure of classes, however, likely 

contributed to the uneven results. 

Findings on ninth grade promotion are generally more positive. Promotion data is only available 

for the seven SDP schools, but at these schools the promotion rate for first-time ninth grade 

students increased 17 to 30 percentage points per school between the baseline year and the end of 

the first year of grant implementation. Although promotion rates are considerably lower for 

students repeating the ninth grade than they are for first-time ninth graders, five of the seven 

SDP schools increased the percentage of repeating ninth graders promoted to the tenth grade, 

with a few schools increasing this rate by 20 percentage points or more. 

A central goal of the MEES grants is to increase the percentage of students testing at grade level 

and the percentage of students who are no longer basic-skills deficient at the target schools. 

Eight of the schools are using the Gates Macginitie Reading Test (GMRT) to assess changes in 

reading and a Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) to assess ninth-grade math scores, 

while Berkshire JSHS is using Star Testing. Since these tests are given annually in the fall, the 

evaluation does not have access to consistent data on the reading and math achievement of ninth 

graders. The data from standardized test scores, administered to tenth and eleventh grade 

students to assess the AYP status at the schools, show mixed results. Some schools show small 

increases, whereas others show declines. Research suggests, however, that academic gains (as 

measured by standardized tests) typically lag behind shifts in behavior, attendance, and course 

completion and promotion. Thus, the improvements in climate, ninth-grade attendance, and 

ES-11 
ninth-grade promotion are promising signs that many of the schools are moving in the right 

direction. 

Finally, grantees are seeking to make lasting improvements in school culture by investing in 

professional development for teachers, creating vehicles for collective decision-making (such as 

the Turnaround Teams), implementing common planning time for teachers, creating small 

learning communities, and instituting early-warning data systems that identify students at risk of 

dropping out. During the first full year of grant implementation, all of the schools began using 

student data to (1) strategically identify and intervene on behalf of at-risk students, and (2) 

strategize as to how to improve the effectiveness of instruction. All schools, with the exception 

of Berkshire JSHS, have identified students on the Early Warning Indicator (EWI) list and are 

using diagnostic tests to monitor student achievement. Schools have also created a number of 

different vehicles for school-wide collaboration including the TT committee and subcommittees, 

common planning time for teachers, case management teams, and the SSCs. 

Conclusion 

It is apparent from the first year of grant implementation that grant-funded interventions need 

time to develop and integrate into the cultures of the schools. The school districts move at a 

measured pace to approve contracts, modify budgets, improve facilities, and hire staff. It takes 

time for new contractors to develop the types of relationships with teachers and other school staff 

members that are necessary to launch programs. Similarly, some aspects of grant program 

design, such as recruiting adult community mentors, are slow because they are inherently 

challenging. During the first year of implementation, the schools really just came to the 

precipice of full grant implementation, and measures of school change from the end of SY 2010– 

2011 will likely show more of the influences of grant-funded reforms. 

At the close of the first year of grant implementation, there are many signs that schools are on 

the right track. There is a strong focus at most schools on creating integrated reform (rather than 

a series of separate programs), enhancing communication and collaboration, improving the 

quality of the teaching staff, and creating small learning communities and collaborative 

structures that will outlast the MEES funding stream. In the first year of grant implementation, 

schools also made great progress towards deepening buy-in for systemic reform among teachers 

and parents. All of these signs indicate that schools are making steady progress towards 

achieving the larger goals of the MEES initiative. The second year of implementation is a 

unique opportunity for schools to focus on improving the quality of services and to build on their 

successes so that the promises of the MEES grant reforms may come to full fruition. 

ES-12 
 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provided funding to nine schools in the form of 

the Mentoring, Educational, and Employment Strategies to Improve Academic, Social, and 

Career Pathway Outcomes in Schools Designated Persistently Dangerous (MEES grants). As 

indicated in the grant title, these nine schools had been designated as “persistently dangerous” 

under the Unsafe School Choice Option of No Child Left Behind.1 The central goal of the 

MEES grants is to reduce violence within these schools by combining mentoring, educational, 

employment, case management, and violence-prevention strategies for positive school change. 

The schools are using the grant to restructure themselves in ways that expand the levels of 

services provided to students and enhance coordination of these services within the schools and 

their communities. 

DOL contracted with Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) to evaluate how these nine high 

schools have planned, designed, and implemented programs, interventions, and services under 

the MEES grants. This Early Implementation Report of the Mentoring, Educational, and 

Employment Strategies to Improve Academic, Social, and Career Pathways in Persistently 

Dangerous Schools – Generation I presents the evaluation’s findings as of the end of the first 

year of grant implementation, school year (SY) 2009–2010. The report describes, in depth, the 

strategies that schools are using to improve school climate and increase academic achievement 

and summarizes grantees’ accomplishments and challenges. The evaluation team draws on data 

from the pre-grant baseline year (SY 2007–2008) and the planning year (SY 2008–2009) as 

points of comparison. The evaluation is ending mid-way through grant implementation 

(December 2010) and as a result it is only able to document the first stages of implementation at 

each of the schools, and can draw only preliminary conclusions about the influence of the grant 

on school climate and academic outcomes. 

These schools are Berkshire Junior/Senior High School in New Canaan, NY; W.E.B. Du Bois High School (HS) 

in Baltimore, MD; and the following schools in Philadelphia, PA: John Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, 

Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS, University HS, and West Philadelphia HS. 

I-1 

1 
Throughout this report, we use a number of key terms. The most common of these are 

highlighted in the text box below. 

Common MEES Terms 

Persistently Dangerous School (PDS). Under the Unsafe Schools Choice Option in the No Child Left 

Behind Act (NCLB), each state must establish standards for identifying “persistently dangerous schools.” 

Generally, a school is considered “persistently dangerous” if during a particular year a certain ratio of 

“dangerous incidents” to enrollment is exceeded. For instance, in Pennsylvania, a school whose enrollment 

is over 1000 is designated persistently dangerous if it has 20 or more dangerous incidents in a year. A 

dangerous incident is defined as a weapons possession incident resulting in arrest (guns, knives, or other 

weapons) or a violent incident resulting in arrest (homicide, kidnapping, robbery, sexual offenses, and 

assaults). 

Student Success Center (SSC). The SSC is a school-based employment center that serves as a hub for 

employment and case management services. The center brings academic and employment services 

together in one location where students can receive support for college and career development. Seven out 

of nine grantee schools have SSCs. 

Turnaround Leadership Team (TT). All grantee schools are required to have a TT. The TT’s role is to 

guide planning and implementation by establishing subcommittees focused on key aspects of grant 

implementation. Members of the TT typically include the principal, Turnaround Principal, community 

members, teachers, students, and parents. 

Turnaround Assistant Principal (TAP). At the seven schools in the School District of Philadelphia, the 

MEES administrator is called a TAP. The TAP’s role is to organize TT meetings, supervise subcommittees’ 

progress, and provide oversight for school-based interventions and grant subcontractors. 

In the remainder of this introductory chapter, we describe the evaluation’s conceptual 

framework, the research questions used to guide data collection, the data collection methods 

themselves, and the structure of the report as a whole. 

Conceptual Framework 

The evaluation is guided by a conceptual framework that focuses on several key aspects of the 

grant: the context in which schools and districts implement their interventions, the partners 

involved, grantees’ implementation experiences, and outputs and outcomes. The conceptual 

framework is presented in Appendix A. Core elements of the framework include the following: 

	 School-level context. A school’s context includes such factors as the size of the 

school, the school’s history of reform, the presence of enrichment activities, the 

degree of parent involvement, and linkages with community organizations. The 

context also includes partner-level factors which may influence the success of the 

grant, including the capacity of the partners and the quality of communication 

between the partners and school staff. 

	 District and school leadership capacities. The role of the school districts in 

managing the grant and guiding the schools in implementing the grant-funded 

reforms and interventions is central to the success of the initiative. SPR is 

assessing the relationship between the grantee school districts and each grantee 

I-2 
 

 

 

school, focusing on the role of each in staffing, scheduling, budget management, 

and curriculum. 

	 Implementation of services and interventions. The services that youth may 

access as part of this grant and the changed circumstances they encounter as a 

result of its reforms and interventions form the core of the MEES efforts. For 

each type of service, the report describes the characteristics of youth participants 

in order to frame the types of outcomes that schools can realistically achieve. 

SPR is also examining schools’ recruitment practices; that is, how they identify 

the most needy students for participation in the initiatives that are supported by 

the MEES grant. 

	 Attributes of effective programs. The evaluation framework assumes that youth 

and school-level outcomes depend, to a large degree, on the quality of services 

that are offered. According to the conceptual model, key attributes of effective 

programs include high academic standards and a culture of high expectations; 

engaging, standards-based instruction; applied learning opportunities; 

opportunities for youth to catch up academically; high-quality teachers; ongoing 

professional development; low student-teacher ratios; connections between youths 

and adults; flexible schedules; clean, accessible, and safe facilities; and 

administrative autonomy and operational flexibility. 

	 Indicators of school change. Grant-funded services are designed to lead to 

school-wide change. Accordingly, the evaluation is documenting shifts in a 

number of school-wide measures, including rates of attendance, suspensions and 

expulsions, ninth-grade course completion, ninth-grade promotion and retention, 

and academic gains (as measured by standardized test scores). In addition to 

looking at these quantitative measures of school change, the evaluation is 

assessing shifts in school practices as well as shifts in the structure and operation 

of the schools. For instance, the evaluation is documenting changes in how the 

schools use student data to guide decision-making and changes in the level of 

communication and collaboration among school officials, parents, and community 

stakeholders. Since the majority of grant-funded services did not launch until the 

Spring 2010, these outcomes are preliminary. 

The framework described above serves as the basis for the major research questions that are 

listed below. A full list of questions is included in Appendix B. 

	 What contextual factors are important for understanding the design, 

implementation, and outcomes of the grant-funded activities?
 

	 What is the leadership and management structure of the grant? Who are the key 

staff members? What does each school’s budget look like? What methods are 

used to manage the program and coordinate contracts among partners? 

	 Who are the key partners in this effort? How were they selected and mobilized? 

What are their specific roles in the project? 

	 What are the strategies schools adopt to bring about reform? What are the 

challenges they encounter in implementing these strategies?
 

I-3 
 

	 Which services and reforms target the whole school? Which services and 

interventions target particular students? What proportion of participants take part 

in the various education, employment, violence-prevention, mentoring, and case 

management services and interventions?
 

	 What school-wide outcomes has the school achieved? Have there been any 

significant, unanticipated outcomes? 

	 What are the key characteristics of effective approaches for increasing academic 

achievement and completion in schools that are classified as “persistently 

dangerous”? 

Data Collection Methods 

This evaluation is an implementation study that relies heavily on qualitative data gathered from 

three rounds of telephone interviews and four rounds of site visits to each school and quantitative 

data from Management Information System (MIS) reports and other sources. Exhibit I-1 

presents a summary of data collection methods and when they occurred. 

Exhibit I-1: 

Summary of Data Collection Activities 

Activity Timeline 

Telephone Interviews Round 1: Fall 2008 

Round 2: Fall 2009 

Round 3: Fall 2010 

Site Visits Round 1: Spring 2009 

Round 2: Summer 2009 

Round 3: Spring 2010 

Round 4: Summer 2010 

MIS Data Data submissions from December 

2009 to June 2010. Submissions 

include: 

1) New-school-year reports 

2) Quarterly reports 

3) End-of-year reports 

Quantitative Data from School 

District of Philadelphia (SDP) 

Data submitted annually: SY 

2008–2009 and SY 2009–2010. 

Quantitative Data from 

Philadelphia Youth Network 

(PYN) 

School-specific data on student 

participation in employment 

interventions, SY 2009–2010 

I-4 
 

 

 

Telephone Interviews 

Over the course of the project, SPR staff members conducted a total of 27 telephone interviews 

with school staff members and teachers, school district staff persons, and technical assistance 

providers. Nineteen phone interviews were conducted with school staff members to document 

their progress and track developments at each school in the fall of 2008 and fall of 2009.2 These 

interviews focused on the status of key services, staffing and hiring, timeline for implementation, 

and any roadblocks that schools may have encountered. SPR staff members also conducted four 

interviews with the Program Manager and the Research Associate from the School District of 

Philadelphia (SDP)—one interview occurred in 2008, one in 2009, and two in 2010—to 

document the district’s implementation of the MEES grant, including technical assistance and 

oversight of grant implementation. Lastly, SPR staff members interviewed four technical 

assistance providers in 2010 to capture their perspectives on the schools’ progress and challenges 

with grant implementation.3 

Site Visits 

The evaluation included four rounds of site visits to document schools’ planning and 

implementation experiences. There were 34 site visits in all. The goals of the site visits were to 

document (1) the key contextual variables that shaped the design, planning, and implementation 

of the grants, (2) the approaches that schools are using to improve academic achievement and 

reduce violence, (3) the quality of services that grantees are providing, and (4) the barriers and 

facilitators that schools experienced. A summary of the site visits is included in Exhibit I-2. 

Exhibit I-2: 

Summary of Site Visit Activities 

Goal of Visit Number of Days Schools 

Round 1 

(Spring 2009) 

Document the planning process 

for MEES grant reforms 

One day Nine schools 

Round 2 

(Summer 2009) 

Document grant-funded 

summer programs 

One day Eight schools 

Round 3 

(Spring 2010) 

Document schools’ 

implementation of grant-funded 

services 

Four days Eight schools 

Five days One school (Berkshire JSHS) 

2	 Two interviews were conducted with Berkshire JSHS staff in 2009, in part because one extended phone 

interview was in place of a summer site visit. 

3	 These providers include American Institutes for Research (AIR), Center for Secondary School Redesign, 

Philadelphia Youth Network, and the United Way. 

I-5 
 

 

Goal of Visit Number of Days Schools 

Round 4 

(Summer 2010) 

Document grant-funded 

summer programs 

One day Eight schools 

Research staff visited eight of the schools for seven days over the course of the evaluation and 

visited Berkshire Junior Senior High School (JSHS) for six days.4 During these visits, research 

staff members interviewed school individuals in the following roles: 

	 School leaders. The principal and Turnaround Assistant Principal (TAP) were 

interviewed to get updates on the status of grant implementation and capture other 

relevant school-wide events that may affect the grant. 

	 Teachers. Reading, math, and credit recovery teachers were interviewed to 

document their priorities for improving students’ core skills, the methods they 

used to engage students, and their roles in the grant planning process.
 

	 School staff members. These individuals generally included the Climate 

Manager, school counselors, dean of students, student advisors, parent 

ombudsman, and others. Interviews with these staff members provided data about 

the school climate, trends in school violence, coordinated efforts to reduce 

violence, and priorities for change. 

	 Partners/providers. Staff members from a number of school-based partners that 

were hired to deliver services were interviewed to gather data on the partners’ 

roles at the school and in implementing the MEES grant, the status of the services 

they plan to implement, and the process for coordinating service delivery with 

school staff. 

	 Students. Focus groups were conducted with different groups of youth, including 

incoming ninth graders, current ninth graders, and upperclass students. These 

sessions focused on students’ perspectives on their communities, educational 

experiences, the school climate, the quality of teaching and learning, and 

opportunities for employment. 

In addition to conducting these interviews, research staff members observed a number of 

interventions as they were being practiced, including reading and math classes, common 

planning time, mentoring activities, and employment activities. Research staff members also 

observed student interactions in the hallways during passing time and during lunchtime, and 

student and teacher interactions in the classrooms and program activities. The observations 

Berkshire JSHS is a year-round school. In lieu of a summer site visit to Berkshire JSHS, research staff 

conducted an extended telephone interview with summer school staff at this school. 

I-6 

4 
 

 

 

 

allowed the research team to get a sense for the school climate and to better understand the 

factors that may contribute to violent incidents at the schools. 

Quantitative Data 

The major source of quantitative data for the evaluation was the schools’ quarterly MIS data 

submissions. These submissions cover a period of three years: the pre-grant-award baseline year 

(SY 2007–2008), the planning year (SY 2008–2009), and the first year of grant implementation 

(SY 2009–2010). Because most grantees did not fund services during the planning year, the 

quantitative analysis focuses primarily on comparing data from the first year of implementation 

(SY 2009–2010) to that of the baseline year (SY 2007–2008). 

MEES schools submit six MIS reports to DOL each year; these include a new-school-year 

report, four quarterly reports, and an end-of-year report. The new-school-year reports document 

enrollment at the beginning of the year and demographic data.5 The four quarterly reports and 

the end-of-the-year report document average daily attendance (for all students and for ninth 

graders), academic performance of ninth graders (including course completion), behavioral 

incidents, and student participation in grant activities. The end-of-the-year MIS reports also 

record promotion rates for all students, broken out by grade level.6 

SPR staff members also analyzed quantitative data provided by the School District of 

Philadelphia (SDP), quantitative data provided by Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN), and 

quarterly narrative reports from Du Bois HS. The quantitative data from the SDP included 

baseline measures from SY 2007–2008 and SY 2008–2009 on attendance, academic 

performance, and behavioral incidents for seven of the grantee schools. The quantitative data 

from PYN included data on the number of unduplicated students participating in employment 

interventions at SDP schools and on the total number of times that schools provided particular 

employment services (i.e., job shadows, college application assistance, etc). The narrative 

quarterly reports from Du Bois HS included data on attendance and academic achievement for 

individual programs as well as comprehensive updates on grant implementation. 

The analysis of school-level quarterly MIS reports is limited considerably by the fact that schools 

only submitted aggregate data due to various privacy and data collection concerns. Without 

Although the new-school-year report is designed to record the results of baseline reading and math assessments 

of incoming ninth graders, these data were not included in 2009-2010 SY new-school-year MIS reports for 

Philadelphia schools. 

I-7 

5 
 

 

 

individual-level data, research staff members cannot conduct an outcomes analysis that would 

allow them to explore the factors—such as demographic attributes and services received—that 

are related to students’ outcomes. However, the MIS data help the research team understand 

broad patterns of enrollment, implementation, and school change at each school and to compare 

patterns among schools. Since the majority of grant-funded programs did not launch until late in 

the spring of 2010, the changes that are captured in the MIS reports are preliminary. 

Overview of the Remainder of this Report 

The remainder of this report provides a detailed description of the first year of MEES grant 

implementation. Chapter II provides an overview of the MEES initiative; it describes the various 

interventions that schools are implementing and the key players in the initiative (the school 

districts, schools, and technical assistance providers). Chapter III describes the first year of grant 

implementation, covering the grant budgets, the staff people who have been hired with the grant, 

the timelines for implementation, and the contracted partners. Chapters IV, V, and VI provide 

detailed descriptions of the strategies funded by the grant and the particular interventions and 

reforms that accompany those strategies. Chapter VII presents evidence of school change, with a 

focus on shifts in school climate, shifts in academic achievement, and shifts in school culture. 

The report concludes with a discussion of the core accomplishments and challenges arising from 

the first year of grant implementation. 

The evaluation team received end-of-the-year reports from only seven of the nine schools. DuBois HS and 

Berkshire JSHS did not submit these reports in time to be included in the analysis for this report. 

I-8 

6 
II. OVERVIEW OF INITIATIVE 

This chapter provides an overview of the MEES grant, discussing topics that form the 

background for understanding the more specific discussions of grant implementation that make 

up the following chapters. Core topics addressed in this chapter are: grant service design, the 

key milestones in grant implementation, the key institutional players involved in the grant 

(districts, schools, contractors, and technical assistance providers), and the characteristics of the 

MEES schools. 

Service Design 

In its Solicitation for Grant Applications, DOL outlined five core strategies that are required 

components of the MEES grant: 

	 Educational Strategies. Educational strategies include school restructuring 

efforts and alternative learning strategies. 

	 Mentoring Strategies. Mentoring strategies may include one-on-one mentoring, 

group mentoring, and service-based mentoring. 

	 School Climate Strategies. School climate interventions may include conflict 

resolution classes, anti-bullying efforts, student courts, peer mediation, anger 

management classes, crisis intervention strategies, increased involvement of 

parents, and training teachers in effective classroom management. 

	 Employment Strategies. Employment interventions focus on providing 

internships for juniors and seniors in high-growth occupations and industries; they 

can also include career awareness activities and the promotion of college access. 

	 Case Management Strategies. Case management interventions involve a team 

of full-time advocates for youth stationed at the school and serving as case 

managers, who assist school counselors in addressing the behavioral, truancy, and 

academic problems of youth. 

The grant service design at each school has evolved over the course of the project. Schools laid 

out initial service designs in their grant proposals to DOL, and then refined their implementation 

plans over the course of the planning year (SY 2008–2009). Exhibit II-1 provides an overview 

of core grant-funded interventions in each of the five strategies. 

II-1 
Exhibit II-1: 

Overview of Reform Strategies and Interventions Funded by the MEES Grant

□ = still in planning stages  = implementation begun 

Strategies and Specific Reforms, Programs, and Interventions 

Total # of schools 

adopting strategy

Bartram HS 

Berkshire JSHS 

Du Bois HS

FitzSimons HS

Educational Strategies 

Hiring new teachers 8    

Increasing teacher effectiveness e.g., professional development, common planning time, instructional coaches 9     

Remediating poor academic achievement e.g., enriched math and English, afterschool remedial programs 6   

Facilitating credit retrieval e.g., Saturday school, Twilight Schools, and extended school day 7    

Reconstituting schools as academies e.g., Ninth Grade Academies and Career Academies 7   Providing instructional and curricular supports e.g., online curriculum, student incentives 9     

Offering Summer Programs 9     

Mentoring Strategies 

Adult mentoring 9   □  

Peer mentoring 7   

Group mentoring, including service learning 8    

II-2 
  

 

 

  

Strategies and Specific Reforms, Programs, and Interventions 

Total # of schools 

adopting strategy

Bartram HS 

Berkshire JSHS 

Du Bois HS

FitzSimons HS

Strategies to Improve School Climate 

Dedicated climate staff (Climate Manager, Behavioral Management Specialists) Incentive program for positive behavior Professional development for staff Peer mediation and/or Rites of Passage Leadership Program In-school suspension program 

Employment and College Access Strategies 

Student Success Center InternshipsSupporting career development Promoting college access 

Case Management Strategies 

Student Success Center Dedicated case management staff Providing individual counseling Providing group counseling Using a team-based approach to address attendance and behavior problems 

5   3 2 6   

3 □ 

7   

9     9     7 

7   

9     9     8 9     

II-3 
 

As illustrated in Exhibit II-1, the MEES grant is funding a number of specific programs within 

each of the five strategies. The following observations can be made about how these specific 

programs and interventions are distributed among the MEES schools: 

	 Education. All of the schools are using the grant to improve teacher 

effectiveness, develop and provide additional instructional and curricular 

supports, and implement summer programs. Most schools are also using the grant 

to increase the number of teachers, develop and implement credit retrieval 

programs, and enhance academy structures in the schools. Finally, six out of the 

nine schools are using the grant to support academic remediation programs. 

	 Mentoring. All of the schools are using the grant to develop and implement adult 

mentoring programs. Additionally, most schools are also developing and 

implementing peer mentoring programs and group mentoring programs.
 

	 School Climate. While schools are doing less in the category of improving 

school climate than in mentoring and education, six of the schools are funding 

peer mediation programs and/or Rites of Passage Leadership Programs. Other 

uses of the grant in this strategy include funding dedicated climate staff such as 

climate managers and behavioral management specialists, developing incentive 

programs for positive behavior, and developing in-school suspension programs. 

Finally, two schools are using the grant to fund professional development on 

school climate. 

	 Employment. All of the schools are using the grant to fund internships and career 

exploration and preparation services. Additionally, seven of the schools are 

funding college access interventions and on-site employment centers. 

	 Case Management. All of the schools are funding dedicated case management 

staff members and using one-on-one counseling as part of case management 

strategies. Most schools are also funding on-site case management centers, group 

counseling and support groups, and targeted attendance and behavioral support 

for students. 

Timeline 

A timeline of key milestones in grant implementation is included as Exhibit II-2. Key milestones 

in grant implementation thus far include hiring a grant coordinator or Turnaround Assistant 

Principal (TAP) to oversee the grant, forming a Turnaround Leadership Team (TT) to oversee 

grant planning and implementation, hiring key school staff members, selecting contractors, and 

launching reforms and interventions. As is illustrated in the timeline, Berkshire JSHS and Du 

Bois HS were able to quickly ramp-up grant efforts and started implementing many grant 

programs during the planning year. On the other hand, the SDP schools did not launch many key 

grant programs until mid-way through year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

II-4 
Exhibit II-2: 

Timeline of Key Milestones 

Summer 2008 

Planning Year 

(SY 2008–2009) Summer 2009 

Year One of Implementat

(SY 2009–2010) 

Du Bois HS Berkshire JSHS SDP schools1 

May 2008 – Grant announcement released

June 2008 – Grant notification 

 Grant 

coordinator hired 

 Formed Turnaround 

Leadership Team 

 Launched Transitional 

Evening School 

 Launched Futures Works!  Formed school-based 

turnaround team 

 Hired key staff  Implemented many key grant 

interventions, including extended school day, case management, and internships 

 Hired Turnaround Assistant 

Principals (TAP) hired 

 Formed Turnaround 

Leadership Teams 

 SDP provided regular 

professional development to TAPs 

 Summer 

program 

 Summer 

Bridge 

 Released 

RFP for Student Success Center contractors 

 Hired key school staff and m

teachers 

 Implemented Talent 

Development HS model 

 Launched Career Connect 

program 

 Selected mentoring contrac Finalized mentoring model 

hired mentoring staff 

 Hired key school staff and 

teachers 

 Launched educational 

interventions launched (Fal2009) 

 SDP released RFQ for 

mentoring, education, and employment services 

 Selected mentoring, 

employment and case management contractors 

 Launched contractor 

interventions (Spring 2010) 

1 Includes Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS 

II-5 
Key Players 

A number of key institutional players are involved in designing, supporting, and implementing 

the grant-funded programs outlined in the above section. These key players include districts, 

schools, contractors, and technical assistance providers. The following sections provide a brief 

overview of each of these players in order to contextualize the strategies and outcomes discussed 

in the remainder of the report. 

School Districts 

Although all of the interventions funded by the MEES grant are occurring at the school level, the 

school districts are the recipients of the grants and influence grant implementation to varying 

degrees. School districts can elect to play a hands-on role in oversight and monitoring of grant 

implementation, as has the School District of Philadelphia (SDP). More significantly, however, 

school districts set policies governing personnel, instruction, and allocation of resources that 

influence grant implementation. The school districts have also influenced aspects of MEES 

grant implementation through their role in defining curriculum standards, providing professional 

development, and defining guidelines for school schedules, security and discipline policies, and 

so forth. The following is a discussion of key contextual circumstances in each district that 

affect grant implementation. (See Exhibit II-3 for an overview of each district.) 

School District of Philadelphia 

The School District of Philadelphia (SDP) is the largest of the three grant recipient districts. Its 

annual operating budget is just over $2 billion, with per-pupil expenditures at just under $11,500. 

SDP is made up of 284 schools, seven of which are MEES grant recipients. It enrolls over 

163,000 students annually, the majority of whom are low income (70 percent), African American 

(61 percent) or Hispanic (18 percent). Currently, the district is in the process of implementing a 

number of reforms, many of which were ushered in by Dr. Arlene Ackerman, who became the 

district superintendent in June 2008. 

Key contextual factors and reform efforts that affect the context for grant implementation include 

the following: 

	 In 2009, SDP adopted a new strategic plan, which shares many goals of the 

MEES grant. One aspect of the strategic plan was to focus intensively on 

student success by lowering the student-to-counselor ratio, creating individual 

learning plans for all ninth graders, implementing summer school for all students, 

placing a parent ombudsman in schools, and launching peer mediation, in-school 

suspension programs, and Student Success Centers. The SDP strategic plan also 

places a priority on reforming low-performing schools, which it has done by 

II-6 
 

 

 

identifying “Empowerment Schools” in need of additional support and 

“Renaissance Schools.” SDP was able to use an influx of stimulus funding to 

implement many of the reforms outlined in the strategic plan.1 As a result, the 

overall budget of SDP schools rose independently of the MEES grant in SY 

2008–2009 and SY 2009–2010. 

	 SDP opened a number of special admittance high schools and charter schools 

in recent years that pull students away from the MEES-funded 

neighborhood high schools. 

2 As a result of the abundance of educational options 

available to students, there is a steady decline in enrollment for large 

“neighborhood” high schools—such as the ones funded by the MEES grant—that 

have no admission criteria and do not require an application from students. 

	 Several other district initiatives align with grant reforms: (1) the Single 

School Culture initiative aims to increase safety in schools through a 

comprehensive model focused on problem-solving, prevention, intervention, and 

recovery; (2) the Comprehensive Student Assistance Process (CSAP) offers threetiered support and assistance to students with academic, behavioral, and/or 

attendance difficulties; and (3) the Classrooms for the Future grant that increases 

access to innovative technology in the classrooms. 

Baltimore City Public Schools 

Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) enrolls more than 80,000 students. It has an annual 

budget of over $1 billion, and its per-pupil expenditure is $9,452. The students at its 198 schools 

are predominantly African American (88 percent) and low income (84 percent). Only one of 

BCPS’s schools—Du Bois HS—is a recipient of the MEES grant. Like SDP, BCPSS is 

currently undergoing a wave of reforms that creates a certain context for the grant: 

	 In SY 2007–2008, BCPS implemented a Fair Student Funding model, which 

increased the control that principals have over their schools’ budgets. As a 

result of this model, BCPS has less direct oversight over the MEES grant than 

SDP does. A district leader explained the larger philosophy behind this model: 

The Central Office’s job is not to dictate or demand that everyone 

does things in a specific fashion, but that you have great leaders 

and they have great faculty and they make the determinations as to 

what’s the best way to serve, from an educational perspective, and 

from a school climate perspective . . . our kids. They know their 

kids best and understand what they need. What they need in one 

school may not meet the needs of the school next door or across 

the street. This changes the interactions between the school 

district and the schools. 

1	 Stimulus funding to SDP includes $235 million in FY 2009–2010 and $184 million in FY 2010–2011. 

2	 SDP has 17 special admittance high schools, 12 citywide admission high schools, and 29 independent charter 

high schools. 

II-7 
 

 

 

	 In SY 2000–2001, BCPS implemented a small school policy and separated 

several large high schools into small academies. Du Bois HS, the MEES grant 

recipient in the district, was created as the result of this process. Although Du 

Bois HS is technically a distinct entity, it shares a building with another small 

school created as a result of this effort. 

	 In recent years, BCPS has opened a number of charter, transformation, and 

contract schools and simultaneously closed a number of underperforming 

schools.3 According to respondents, many students choose to go to the newly 

opened schools over the more traditional large neighborhood schools, leading to 

declining enrollment at Du Bois HS. To counteract this, Du Bois HS must recruit 

students from the closed schools, many of whom have behavioral and/or academic 

problems. 

Berkshire Unified Free School District 

Berkshire Unified Free School District (BUFSD) is very different from SDP and BCPS. Rather 

than being a large, urban district, it is a small, rural district with an annual budget of only $7 

million. Berkshire JSHS is the only school in the district, and the superintendent of the district 

acts as the principal of the school. Thus, there is no real distinction between the district and the 

school. BUFSD also serves a primarily minority student population, although it has a larger 

percentage of white students (28 percent) than the other districts. All of its students are eligible 

for free or reduced lunch. Other key contextual factors include the following: 

	 BUFSD serves a unique student population. The district serves exclusively 

male students who are referred to the district by their home school districts, the 

Department of Social Services, or the courts because they are a threat to 

themselves or someone else or because of behavioral problems. Ninety-eight 

percent of its students have at least three mental health diagnoses, and 80 percent 

are diagnosed with Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Because 

BUFSD serves such a high-needs student population, its per pupil expenditures 

exceed $45,000. 

	 The majority of students in BUFSD live in an adjoining residential facility. 

This residential facility is managed by Berkshire Farm Center and Services for 

Youth, a non-profit agency that works closely with the district to provide services 

to the students. 

	 In SY 2009–2010, BUFSD lost a New York State Department of Education 

grant for $230,000. As a result, the district will be forced to modify the overall 

school schedule and staffing levels as well as grant plans. 

In SY 2009-2010, BCPS opened six new Transformation Schools, two new charter schools, and one contract 

school. It closed or relocated nine schools. 

II-8 

3 
Exhibit II-3: 

Overview of School Districts in SY 2009–2010 

# of 

Annual 

Budget Enrollment 

Per Pupil 

Spending 

Three Largest 

Demographic Groups 

Lowincome1 Total # of 

Schools 

MEES 

Schools 

School District of Philadelphia (SDP) 

$2.2 163,064 $11,490  African American 70 284 7 

billion (61 percent) 

 Hispanic 

(18 percent) 

 White 

(13 percent) 

Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) 

$1.3 82,866 $9,452  African American 84 201 1 

billion (88 percent) 

 White 

(8 percent) 

 Hispanic 

(3 percent) 

Berkshire Union Free School District (BUFSD) 

$7 223 $45,445  Black or African 100 1 1 

million American (58 percent) 

 White (28 percent) 

 Hispanic or Latino (13 

percent) 1

 As measured by the percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunch. 

Sources: SDP http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/about/ 

BCPSS http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/2167104685314217/site/default.asp 

BUFD https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb-rc/2009/27/AOR-2009-100308020001.pdf 

http://www.greatschools.org/cgi-bin/ny/district-profile/68 

http://www.greatschools.org/new-york/canaan/255-Berkshire-Junior-Senior-High-School/ 

Schools 

Under the MEES grant, DOL provided funding to nine schools in order to foster and support 

school reform efforts. Seven of these schools—Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, Germantown HS, 

Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS—are part of SDP. 

The remaining two schools—Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS—are part of BUFSD and BCPS 

respectively. The schools have several key characteristics in common. 

	 All the schools were eligible for the grant because they were designated as 

“persistently dangerous” under the Unsafe School Choice Option of No Child 

Left Behind (NCLB) for SY 2007-2008. Although all of the schools were 

designated as PDS when they applied for the MEES grant, seven remained on the 

II-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

list at the end of the planning year (SY 2009–2010), and only four schools 

remained on the list as of the beginning of SY 2010–2011. Each state sets its own 

standards for inclusion on this list, although inclusion is typically based on the 

rate of serious incidences per student.4 

	 All of these schools have low rates of academic performance and failed to 

make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under NCLB for SY 2009–2010.5
 

Many of the schools are in “corrective action II,” meaning they have failed to 

make AYP for at least five years. 

	 All but one of the schools is considered a non-selective neighborhood school, 

and therefore faces a unique set of challenges. One study that looked 

specifically at large, neighborhood schools in Philadelphia found that these 

schools are at a “distinct disadvantage when compared to small, charter and 

selective high schools,” particularly regarding students’ successful transitions to 

ninth grade.6,7 Berkshire JSHS is not a comprehensive neighborhood high school, 

but is instead a residential high school that serves male students who have been 

referred by the courts or by the New York Department of Social Services. 

Despite these important commonalities, the nine MEES schools differ in many respects. Some of 

the important characteristics that set them apart from one another and form the basic context of 

grant implementation at each school are discussed below in the section “Characteristics of the 

Schools.” 

Contractors and Technical Assistance Providers 

In addition to the districts and schools, a number of other organizations are involved with the 

MEES grant. 

	 Grantee schools contracted with a number of community-based 

organizations to implement interventions under the MEES grant. In total, 

4	 Serious incidences may include weapons possessions, violent incidents, incidents that result in arrest, incidents 

involving drugs, etc. 

5	 Each state sets it own standards for AYP based on standardized test scores in reading/language arts and math and 

graduation rates. 

6	 Research for Action (January 2010), “Context, Conditions, and Consequences: Freshmen Year Transition in 

Philadelphia.” Retrieved from http://www.researchforaction.org/publication/details/577 

7	 In particular, stratification caused by the school choice system resulted in Black and Latino ninth 

graders, ninth grade boys, and students with special needs enrolling in these types of schools at a higher 

rate than in special admissions high schools. Additionally, neighborhood schools also enroll a large 

number of ninth graders well into the start of the school year because of geographic mobility or returns 

from the juvenile justice system or other schools. Finally, ninth-grade teacher turnover is higher at 

these schools compared to other high schools in the district. 

II-10 
 The School District of Philadelphia holds weekly meetings for the 

Turnaround Assistant Principals (TAP) and other key school and district staff 

members (e.g., those in the Office of School Climate and Safety) covering a 

range of issues related to grant administration, school reform, and data 

tracking. 

Education  John Hopkins Talent Development High School worked with two schools 

on developing ninth grade academies, teacher teams, and career 

academies. 

 The Center for Secondary School Redesign worked with two schools on 

topics such as ninth grade academy development, common planning time, 

advisory periods, and leadership. 

Mentoring  Branch and Associates was in contract with DOL to conduct research and 

evaluation in support of the mentoring programs across schools. It 

subcontracted with the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania, whose 

role is described below. 

 The United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania (UWSEPA) provided TA 

to all of the schools on developing and implementing mentoring programs. 

UWSEPA held five cross-site trainings covering topics such as how to create 

a vision statement, market programs, recruit mentors, help matches stay 

connected, capitalize on social networks, and plan events. It also held onsite trainings for many of the Philadelphia schools’ mentors and mentees. 

more than 25 contractors are providing services under the MEES grant, although 

the depth and intensity of their involvement vary greatly. Each school is working 

with between one and nine contractors, with some contractors providing services 

in multiple strategies at one school. Additionally, some contractors are working 

in more than one school under the MEES grant. Chapter III provides more details 

on the contractor selection and management process as well as the role of 

contractors in the schools. 

	 Throughout the planning year and first year of implementation of the grant, 

a variety of different technical assistance (TA) providers worked to build the 

capacity of school leaders and staff to drive change. Because shifting the 

culture of the school requires enhancement of the preparation, skills, and 

capacities of school leaders and school staff members, capacity building and 

support are essential to the success of the MEES initiative. Accordingly, TA 

providers were hired by the individual schools, by the school districts, and by 

DOL. Exhibit II-4 provides an overview of key TA providers for the MEES 

grant. 

Exhibit II-4: 

Key TA Providers 

Topic	 Key TA providers 

General grant 

administration and 

implementation 

School Climate  American Institutes of Research trained representatives from the 

Philadelphia schools on CHAMPS, a classroom management and discipline 

program, and Peers Making Peace, a peer mediation program. It also 

provided ongoing TA to all of the schools on school climate. 

II-11 
 Philadelphia Youth Network provided TA to the contractors selected to run 

the Student Success Centers (SSCs) in the Philadelphia schools through 

monthly meetings with SSC directors and bi-monthly meetings with SSC 

staff. 

 American Institutes of Research provided ongoing assistance to one 

school on developing its career and internship component. 

 Philadelphia Academies Inc., provided assistance to eight of the nine 

schools on developing internships for students. 

 

 

 

Topic	 Key TA providers 

Employment/Case 

Management 

Note: This table only includes TA providers who worked with more than one school. 

Characteristics of the Schools 

Below, we look at the enrollments, demographics, and transfer rates for the MEES schools in 

more detail in order to further contextualize grant implementation. (Note that a thorough 

discussion of the climate and academic performance at each school is included in Chapter VII.) 

Enrollment 

In SY 2009–2010, total enrollment at the MEES schools ranged from more than 1,600 at Lincoln 

HS and Overbrook HS to fewer than 100 at Berkshire JSHS.8 All of the schools except Du Bois 

HS show declining enrollment in recent years. As shown in Exhibit II-5 below, enrollment at 

three of the schools—Berkshire JSHS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS—dropped 

by 30 or more percent between SY 2007–2008 SY and SY 2009–2010. Two key contextual 

factors may help to explain declining enrollment at these schools: 

	 At the Philadelphia schools, declining enrollment is at least partially due to 

an increase in charter, admissions-based, and other types of schools. The 

increase in charter and special admissions schools may explain why incoming 

classes are increasingly smaller at these schools and also may contribute to 

students transferring out of the MEES schools. Many incoming ninth graders 

noted that they would have preferred to go to one of these other types of schools 

but were unable to gain admission. 

	 The “Unsafe School Choice Option” under No Child Left Behind mandates 

that a school labeled as persistently dangerous notify students and families of 

this designation and provide transfer options to students who wish to relocate 

to a different school. This may also contribute to the schools’ declining 

Enrollment for the 2009–2010 SY for Berkshire JSHS was 95 according to the new school year report. 

However, by June 2010, school leaders reported enrollment to be 160 students. Because the school has rolling 

admission, the total number of students served as of June 2010 was 223. 

II-12 

8 
enrollments, although most school stakeholders do not view the PDS label as a 

major influence on enrollment. 

Exhibit II-5: 

Enrollment Over Time 

(SY 2007–2008 to SY 2009–2010) 

 As shown in Exhibit II-6, enrollment at most of the schools is concentrated in the ninth and 

tenth grades. 

Exhibit II-6: 

Enrollment by Grade 

(SY 2009–2010) 

II-13 
In all of the schools, ninth and tenth graders make up more than 50 percent of the student 

population, and in five of the schools, ninth graders alone make up more than 30 percent of 

students. Berkshire JSHS, Lincoln HS, and FitzSimons HS have the highest percentages of ninth 

grade students (41 percent, 38 percent, and 35 percent respectively). Additionally, as shown in 

Exhibit II-7, at each school, repeating ninth graders make up between three percent and 60 

percent of the ninth grade class. 

Exhibit II-7: 

Ninth Grade Class by Type of Student 

This exhibit shows that most of the schools have large numbers of repeating ninth graders— 

those who did not earn sufficient credits to be promoted to the tenth grade in the previous year. 

Du Bois HS is enrolling the largest percentage of repeating ninth graders (60 percent of the total 

ninth grade class), followed by University City HS (48 percent of the ninth grade class). As will 

be discussed further in Chapters IV and VII, the large percentage of repeating ninth graders 

presents some difficult challenges for these schools because of the intensive support that these 

students require in order to catch up on their credits and get back on track to graduation. 

Students who repeat the ninth grade are particularly vulnerable to dropout, and have a 

disproportionate share of disciplinary referrals. 

II-14 
A Closer Look at the Ninth Graders 

Many of the ninth graders at the target schools struggle with low attendance and poor 

behavior. In the majority of the schools, the attendance rate for ninth graders is lower than 

the school’s average attendance rate. The ninth grade students also struggle with behavioral 

challenges, which are contributing to their poor school performance. Teachers note that 

many students are disruptive and act out in class, resulting in disciplinary action. According to 

one teacher from West Philadelphia HS, “A lot of kids are smart. They failed because they 

act crazy, get suspended, and get kicked out. Or they skip class because they don’t care 

about school.” Another teacher from the same school said: 

A lot of ninth graders have a lot of issues. They don’t have social 

and coping skills, and some have a false perception of what the 

ninth grade is supposed to be like... They also don’t have the 

benefit of interacting with older kids, so they just horseplay all day 

long. With boys, they’re always running up halls and jumping on 

each other’s backs. 

The behavioral and academic challenges facing ninth graders may account for why so many 

of them struggle to adjust to high school and as a result get off-track during freshmen year. 

One school has many students reading at the third and fourth grade levels, with the average 

reading level at the fifth to sixth grade level. Teachers and school staff members need to 

provide extensive support, by referring students to the school social worker and their families 

to see why they are failing or not attending school. 

As alluded to earlier, the schools also have high rates of student mobility. Exhibit II-8 shows the 

number of transfers in and out of the schools for SY 2009–2010. At five of the schools, more 

than 200 students transferred into the school during SY 2009–2010. Du Bois HS, FitzSimons 

HS, Germantown HS, and West Philadelphia HS have the highest rates of transfer into the school 

in relation to their total enrollment. Although exact figures for exiting students are not available 

for Berkshire JSHS, at least 72 students transferred into the school during SY 2009–2010. 

Additionally, respondents report that the schools enroll a number of new tenth, eleventh, and 

twelfth grade students at the start of each school year. 

These high levels of both intra- and inter-year mobility affect the context for grant 

implementation in at least two key ways: 

	 Because students continually transfer into the schools throughout the year, 

their level of exposure to grant programs varies, and academic outcomes 

often include results for students who have not received a full dose of the 

intervention. However, schools are as responsible for these students’ academic 

performance and behavioral incidences as they are for students who have been 

continuously enrolled throughout the school year. 

	 According to school staff, students who transfer into these schools tend to 

come in with academic and/or behavioral problems. According to respondents 

in SDP and BCPS, the majority of students who transfer during the middle of the 

II-15 
 

school year have been kicked out of or failed out of other high schools in the 

district. Additionally, at the start of SY 2009–2010, Du Bois HS received an 

influx of students from two recently closed schools. 

Exhibit II-8: 

Student Mobility 

(SY 2009–2010) 

Demographics 

The demographics of the MEES schools are also important factors to consider: 

	 All of the MEES schools serve largely minority populations. At seven of the 

nine schools, African American students make up more than 95 percent of the 

school’s population. Lincoln HS and Berkshire JSHS are more diverse, although 

African American students are still the largest racial/ethnic group in the schools. 

These two schools also have sizeable Latino populations (18 percent and 7 

percent respectively). 

	 All of the schools serve predominantly low-income students. At all of the 

schools, over half of the student population is eligible for free/reduced lunch. At 

five of the schools, 80 percent or more of the students are eligible. 

	 Gender is an important factor at the MEES schools. Two of the schools— 

FitzSimons HS and Berkshire JSHS—serve only male students. While the 

remaining schools are mixed-gender, the majority of the schools have a ninth 

grade class that is predominantly male (51 to 61 percent). However, at these same 

schools, less than the half of the students in the twelfth grade class (43 to 48 

percent) are male. Looking longitudinally, it is clear that these schools are losing 

a disproportionate number of male students over time. Male students at these 

schools, therefore, are potentially a particularly high-needs group. This is one 

II-16 
reason that many schools have black boy initiatives, focusing on engaging and 

addressing the needs of this particular population. 

More detailed information on the demographics of each school can be found in Appendix C. 

Summary of Findings 

The MEES grant represents a significant effort to “turn around” nine high schools that have low 

academic performance, declining enrollment, and high rates of student mobility. Eight of the 

nine schools are comprehensive “neighborhood” high schools that have open admission, while 

one high school is a residential high school that serves male students referred by the courts or the 

department of social services. The students at grant-funded schools are disproportionately 

African American, low income, and male. 

With the support of districts, contractors, and TA providers, these schools are implementing 

reforms and interventions in five core strategies: education, mentoring, school environment and 

student behavior, employment, and case management. While the timeline of the implementation 

of various grant programs varies across schools, most grant programs were launched by mid-way 

through year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010). Finally, the MEES grant is not the only 

reform effort occurring within these schools. In most cases, district-level reforms, as well as 

other school-level grants and initiatives, are also happening simultaneously. 

II-17 

III. GRANT IMPLEMENTATION 

This chapter discusses a variety of topics related to the implementation and administration of the 

grant. The chapter begins by providing an overview of the grant budgets, focusing on how each 

school distributed the budget by year, strategy, and expenditure type. Then it discusses, in 

sequence, staffing for grant programs, grant leadership at the district and school levels, 

contractor selection and management, and the role of contractors in providing grant services. For 

each of these topics, the chapter describes the school-wide context for that aspect of grant 

implementation and outlines challenges and lessons learned from the first year of 

implementation. 

Budget 

DOL used PY 2007 and PY 2008 funds to provide initial grants of $6.4 million to the seven 

larger schools and $3.7 million to the two smaller schools to cover a planning period and two 

years of operation. DOL subsequently used PY 2009 funds to provide partial third year funds of 

$960,000 to the larger schools and $546,000 to the smaller schools, with plans to use PY 2010 

funds to provide the remaining third-year funds. 

Exhibit III-1 provides an overview of how each school chose to distribute its grant expenditures 

over the life of the grant. The figures in the exhibit represent planned budgeting only, not actual 

expenditures. Based on data collected during the site visits, we know that spending sometimes 

differed from the planned budget. For example, the Philadelphia schools had budget line items 

in the planning year (SY 2008–2009) for programs that did not start until midway through year 

one of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

III-1 
 

 

Exhibit III-1: 

Planned Year-by-Year Distribution of Grant Expenditures 

As reflected in the averages shown in the bottom row of the exhibit graph, most schools planned 

to spend the bulk of their grant monies during years one and two of implementation, and 

significantly less money during the planning year and year three of implementation. The 

planned expenditures for year three of implementation are lower than those for years one and 

two for two reasons: (1) this is an extension year for the grant, added after initial grant plans 

were made; and (2) schools plan to use this year to taper off the grant, focusing on sustaining and 

finding alternative funding sources for services that have proved most impactful. The 

Philadelphia schools serve as prime examples of this strategy.1

 Berkshire JSHS was atypical in 

spreading expenditures relatively evenly over the four grant years. 

In their planned budgets, schools differed in how they used grant monies. Exhibit III-2 provides 

a breakdown of each school’s grant budget by key category. Again, the figures represent 

planned budgets, not actual expenditures. 

FitzSimons HS budgeted a relatively large percentage of its budget to the planning year because it dedicated a 

similar dollar amount for the planning year as the other Philadelphia schools but received a smaller grant. 

III-2 

1 
Exhibit III-2: 

Planned Distribution of Grant Expenditures by Expenditure Type 

We can make the following generalizations about how schools planned to spend their grants: 

	 Schools planned to direct the majority of their funding to personnel and 

fringe costs (52 percent on average). Du Bois HS and FitzSimons HS broke 

from this pattern, budgeting considerably less for personnel and fringe costs than 

the average (36 percent and 44 percent of their budgets, respectively) because 

they each planned to hire relatively few staff members with the grant. At the 

other end of the spectrum, Bartram HS and University City HS planned to 

dedicate relatively greater proportions of their resources to personnel and fringe 

costs because they each chose to hire a relatively large number of teachers (10 and 

13, respectively) in addition to other school staff members. 

	 Contracts make up the next largest category of spending (35 percent of 

budgets on average). Each school contracted out the majority of the 

employment/case management and mentoring services to community-based 

organizations (CBOs), and some schools chose to contract with additional CBOs 

for education and school climate services. 

	 Expenditures for supplies, travel, and other/indirect charges together make 

up less than one-eighth (12 percent) of the average budget. With these budget 

categories making up 21 percent of its budget, FitzSimons HS is something of an 

outlier. This is due to the school’s decision to spend a relatively large amount of 

money on supplies for instructional interventions and student incentives and less 

money on teacher salaries. 

III-3 
 

 

 

 

Another useful way of analyzing how the schools are spending their grant funding is to look at 

how expenditures are distributed among the various intervention strategies being used to achieve 

the goals of the grant program. Exhibit III-3 shows the percentage of its grant funding that each 

school is planning to dedicate to each MEES strategy. On average, schools budgeted the bulk of 

their grants for education services (42 percent) and employment/case management services (25 

percent).2

 Relatively little funding is going to school climate services (8 percent) and mentoring 

services (6 percent). In addition to funding for services, schools budgeted up to one-third of the 

grant for administration, which includes costs for planning and for the salary of the grant 

administrator. 

Exhibit III-3: 

Planned Distribution of Grant Expenditures by Intervention Strategy
 

While the goals for the grant are fairly consistent across schools, Exhibit III-3 shows that the 

schools are placing varying amounts of emphasis on each intervention strategy. Looking at the 

data in Exhibit III-3 in greater detail, it is possible to make a number of general observations: 

	 Schools planned to spend between 11 and 34 percent of their grant funding 

on administrative costs. In general, the Philadelphia schools planned to spend 

more in this area because, in addition to school-level administrative costs, each 

Case management and employment strategies are combined in our analysis of budget and staffing, because 

at seven of the nine schools these services are delivered in an integrated fashion from Student Success Centers 

(SSCs). 

III-4 

2 
 

 

 

 

school planned to provide, on average, over half a million dollars to support 

district-level administrative costs. FitzSimons HS planned to spend a similar 

amount on administration of the grant as the other Philadelphia schools, but 

because it received a smaller grant, administrative costs account for a larger 

percentage of its grant. Because much of Du Bois High School’s planning was 

done prior to receiving the grant and it did not have to support district-level costs, 

this school planned to dedicate a relatively smaller portion of its budget to 

administration and spend a larger amount on other strategies. 

	 There is considerable variation among the schools in the amounts they plan 

to dedicate to education strategies. The budget percentage going to education 

interventions ranges from 22 percent (FitzSimons) to 53 percent (University 

City). FitzSimons HS dedicated a smaller portion of its grant to education because 

it did not hire any full-time teachers with grant funds. Bartram HS and University 

City HS both chose to hire a large number of teachers with the grant (10 and 13 

respectively), and therefore dedicated 50 percent or more of their grant funds to 

education strategies. 

	 On average, schools planned to support employment/case management 

strategies with fairly significant proportions of their grant funding (25 

percent on average). The relatively lower amounts of planned spending in this 

category for Bartram HS, Overbrook HS, and University City HS (18, 22, and 20 

percent, respectively) may actually understate the emphasis these schools are 

giving to employment/case management strategies, because these schools all had 

pre-existing Student Success Centers (SSCs), and didn’t have to dedicate as much 

money to facility modifications, furniture, and equipment as the other schools.3
 

Du Bois High School’s relatively large planned expenditure on employment/case 

management (31 percent of its budget) clearly represents an emphasis on this 

strategy, as indicated by the fact that it chose to hire a relatively large number of 

staff members in support of this strategy. 

	 All of the grantee schools budgeted less for the school climate and mentoring 

strategies than for the other strategies. At the low end of the spectrum, West 

Philadelphia HS dedicated only three percent of its planned budget to school 

climate strategies and is not supporting any full-time school climate staff 

members with grant funds. Although most of the other schools are planning to 

spend somewhat more than this on school climate strategies, the average is only 8 

percent of total grant expenditures. Because most of the schools took similar 

approaches to mentoring, the budget percentages they dedicated to this strategy 

are both fairly consistent and relatively small, with six of the nine schools 

dedicating between five and seven percent of their budgets to this intervention 

strategy. For both intervention strategies, however, there were schools that put a 

greater emphasis on the strategy than most. Lincoln HS budgeted 11 percent of 

West Philadelphia HS also had a pre-existing Student Success Center, but because of other planned expenditures 

in the employment/case management category, it planned to spend a greater percentage of the grant in this 

category. 

III-5 

3 
 

its grant for climate strategies and planned to hire three full-time school climate 

staff members. Bartram HS planned to dedicate ten percent of its grant funding to 

mentoring, budgeting more than $400,000 for extracurricular pay for teacher 

mentors. 

Overall, the level of funding that schools chose to dedicate to each strategy depended on a 

number of factors not necessarily related to the emphasis placed on that strategy. These factors 

include the presence or absence of other pre-existing services in this strategy, the number of staff 

members required to implement grant programs, and the amount of planning that had taken place 

prior to the grant. (Specific services in each strategy will be discussed in more detail in the 

following chapters.) 

Changes in Overall School Budgets 

As discussed in Chapter II, school budgets have changed considerably in recent years 

independently of the MEES grant. More specifically, the Philadelphia schools’ budgets have 

increased, while those of Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois have decreased. These shifts affect the 

context for grant implementation in a number of ways: 

	 For the Philadelphia schools, school budget increases funded staff members 

and programs that are aligned with grant plans. The influx of stimulus 

funding was used to hire additional teachers and staff members for A/B schedules, 

to reduce class size, to start in-school suspension programs, and to increase 

counselor services. Because much of this increased funding went towards 

services and staffing that are complementary to MEES funding priorities (i.e, 

reduced class sizes and in-school suspension), MEES grant funds were freed up 

for other purposes. However, because expenditures to date were not available at 

the time of report writing, it is not clear how much of grant was freed up or how 

schools plan to reallocate these resources. 

	 Although Du Bois HS’s budget has been decreasing in recent years, the 

MEES grant allowed the school to compensate for some of these losses. For 

example, the grant-funded substance abuse counselor has worked at the school for 

several years, but without the MEES grant, his position would have been 

eliminated due to budget cuts. 

	 Berkshire JSHS’s budget has also decreased in recent years, and similarly to 

Du Bois HS, the MEES grant allowed the school to retain staff members it 

would have otherwise lost. However, in the first year of implementation (SY 

2009–2010), the school lost a substantial grant from the New York State 

Department of Education and was forced to reshuffle grant plans to compensate 

for this loss.
 

III-6 
 

 

 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

Despite the fact that many of the schools’ budgets increased independently of the grant, the 

MEES grant represents a sizeable contribution to each school’s budget, and school stakeholders 

are appreciative of the opportunities for school improvement that this grant provides. At the 

same time, the following budgetary challenges have emerged during the planning year and first 

year of grant implementation: 

	 School leaders have varying levels of discretion over how MEES grant 

monies are allocated. As will be discussed further in the leadership section, in 

general, leaders at the Philadelphia schools have less “resource authority” over 

their grants than leaders at the other schools, because of the strong role assumed 

by the school district. Therefore, the school leaders’ ability to access and redirect 

grant funds as necessary is limited. Although Philadelphia school leaders 

reported fewer challenges resulting from their limited resource authority during 

the implementation year than they did during the planning year, some challenges 

still remain. School leaders at Du Bois HS and Berkshire JSHS have more 

discretion over grant resources and therefore faced fewer challenges around 

accessing grant resources and re-directing funds as necessary. 

	 Some staff members were unclear about how grant funds could and could 

not be used. For example, one social worker noted the following: 

I wish I had a better understanding of how a social worker can use 

DOL money for incentives for attendance and behavior. I want to 

know what’s available. 

Some staff members at another school were likewise unaware that grant funds can 

be used to support field trips for the career academies. 

	 Some Philadelphia school leaders were not clear about what the grant 

actually funds. This problem was particularly prevalent at schools where the 

grant is used as part of a blended funding stream. For example, although 

Overbrook HS and University City HS both have budget line items for the Oasis 

program4 and school leaders were under the impression that the MEES grant 

supports this program, in reality, this was not the case for year one of grant 

implementation (SY 2009–2010). Rather, district operational dollars and DOL’s 

school-district-based Strategies for Reducing Youth Involvement in Gangs and 

Violent Crime grant (School District Grant) supported this program. 

These challenges suggest that while the budget amount is adequate to support grant programs, 

schools may still need additional support on budget management issues. 

Oasis is a “school within a school” for overage, under-credit students. 

III-7 

4 
Staffing 

The MEES grant is increasing services and reducing class size through a sizable increase in 

staffing at each of the schools. As shown in Exhibit III-4, schools hired a total of 140 full-time 

staff members and 62 part-time staff members to manage and implement programs under the 

MEES grant for year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010). While, on average, each school 

hired 16 full-time staff members and seven part-time staff members, there was great variation in 

the total number of staff members hired at each school. The number of full-time staff members 

hired at each school ranges from six to 22, while the number of part-time staff members ranges 

from zero to 29. New staffing levels vary due to (1) the size of the grant each school received, 

(2) the approach that each school took to grant reforms (i.e., investing heavily in curriculum or 

student incentives versus investing in additional staff members), (3) the success each school had 

in hiring for grant-funded positions, and (4) the presence of other, new funding sources that 

increased staffing levels at the school independently from the MEES grant. At most of the 

schools, school staff members other than those funded by the grant charge some of their time to 

the grant for grant activities such as professional development, serving as adult mentors, and 

participating in the Turnaround Teams. 

Exhibit III-4: 

Grant Staffing in Year One of Implementation 

(SY 2009–2010) 

Full-Time Part-Time 

School Contractor Total School Contractor Total 

Bartram HS 14 8 22 0 0 

Berkshire JSHS 13 1 14 9 20 

Du Bois HS 4 5 9 9 4 

FitzSimons HS 1 5 6 0 1 

Germantown HS 12 6 18 0 2 

Lincoln HS 14 6 20 0 8 

Overbrook HS 7 11 18 0 4 

University City HS 16 4 20 0 4 

West Philadelphia HS 7 6 13 0 1 

Total 88 52 140 18 44 

Note: In some cases, there were discrepancies between the staffing numbers given on site, the staffing numbers listed in the 

planned grant budget, and the staffing numbers in the overall school budget. The numbers in this table represent our best 

estimate of the number of grant-funded staff members at each school. 

Some of these staff members started at the school midway through year one of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

III-8 

0 

29 

13 

1 

2 

8 

4 

4 

1 

62 
 

 

Schools hired the majority of the grant staff before or during year one of implementation (SY 

2009–2010). However, a number of schools have since hired or have plans to hire additional 

staff members moving forward. Two schools each hired a program coordinator prior to the start 

of year two of implementation (SY 2010–2011), and all of the Philadelphia schools plan to hire a 

data specialist for this school year. Additionally, three of the schools have plans to hire other, 

additional staff members for various programs. In contrast, Berkshire JSHS plans to lay off or 

reduce the hours of several staff members for year two of grant implementation (SY 2010–2011) 

because the loss of a New York State Department of Education grant forced the school to 

reshuffle staffing and schedules. 

Staffing by Strategy 

The vast majority of the grant staff are associated with specific intervention strategies, as well as 

those that work in the area of grant management. Exhibit III-5 provides a breakdown of the staff 

members hired by strategy and for grant management. 

Exhibit III-5: 

Grant Staffing by Strategy in Year One of Grant Implementation 

(SY 2009–2010) 

Grant 

Management Education 

Employment/ 

Case Mgmt Mentoring 

School 

Climate Total 

FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT 

1 0 12 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 22 0 

0 0 4 0 9 6 0 22 1 1 14 29 

1 0 3 9 5 4 0 0 0 0 9 13 

1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 

1 0 9 2 4 0 2 0 2 0 18 2 

1 0 12 4 4 0 2 4 1 0 20 8 

1 0 5 2 4 2 6 0 2 0 18 4 

1 0 13 1 4 1 0 2 2 0 20 4 

1 0 6 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 13 1 

8 0 64 18 45 15 14 28 9 1 140 62 

Note: In some cases, there were discrepancies between the staffing numbers given on site, the staffing numbers listed in the planned 

grant budget, and the staffing numbers in the overall school budget. The numbers in this table represent our best estimate of the 

number of grant-funded staff members at each school. 

Bartram HS 

Berkshire 

JSHS 

Du Bois HS 

FitzSimons 

HS 

Germantown 

HS 

Lincoln HS 

Overbrook HS 

University City 

HS 

West 

Philadelphia 

HS 

Total 

III-9 
On the basis of the data shown in Exhibit III-5, it is possible to make several general 

observations about how the schools chose to staff the various strategies used in the grant: 

	 Education is the most heavily staffed strategy. However, within this strategy, 

the number of full-time staff members hired by each school varies greatly, from 

zero to 13. Given that most staff members hired for the education strategy are 

teachers, the differences between schools represent different levels of emphasis 

on reducing class size and on educational interventions in general. Other staff 

positions in this category include academic coordinators and instructional 

coaches. 

	 There is relative consistency across schools in the number of staff members 

hired for employment/case management. This consistency is partly due to the 

fact that for this strategy, one agency handled all the contracts for the Philadelphia 

schools and structured staffing similarly across schools. Berkshire JSHS has 

substantially more staff in this category than the others (five staff members for 

case management and 12 for employment) and so breaks from the common 

pattern. 

	 There is considerable variation between the Philadelphia schools and other 

schools in the specific types of job positions hired for the employment/case 

management strategy. Staff members hired in the employment/case management 

category at the Philadelphia schools include project coordinators, post-secondary 

specialists, career development specialists, social workers, and project assistants. 

Employment/case management staff at Du Bois HS include counselors, career 

navigators, and student advocates. At Berkshire JSHS, staff members who work 

within employment/case management include adventure-based counselors, a 

workforce development coordinator, a vocational instructor, a transportation aide, 

and several internship supervisors. Within case management, Berkshire’s 

behavior management specialists are unique in that they each have over ten years 

of experience working with youth and have been trained in therapeutic crisis 

intervention. 

	 The mentoring strategy utilizes fewer staff members than the other 

strategies. Du Bois HS did not hire any mentoring staff members, and rather 

worked with four contractors to coordinate the mentoring program. Each of the 

Philadelphia schools hired one to two contractor staff members housed at the 

school to coordinate its mentoring program. Two of the Philadelphia schools also 

each hired four part-time or full-time school-based mentors. Berkshire JSHS’s 

mentoring program looks somewhat different: the school hired 22 part-time 

mentoring staff members on a per diem basis to recruit mentors across the state of 

New York. 

	 Schools hired relatively few school climate staff members. Three schools did 

not hire any school climate staff members with the MEES grant, and the 

remaining schools each hired one to two school climate staff members. The 

majority of climate staff members hired are managers of non-instructional school 

services or in-school suspension teachers. 

III-10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the school-year staff, a number of grant-funded staff work at the Summer Bridge 

programs, a subset of the education strategy. A total of 129 school staff members, eight full-time 

contractor staff members, and 58 part-time contractor staff members were hired to work 

specifically on Summer Bridge programs.5

 Additionally, in many cases, the Summer Bridge 

programs were supported by year-round staff persons such as the turnaround assistant principals, 

the employment/case management staff members, and the mentoring staff members. 

Changes in School-Wide Staffing 

While the number of school-based staff members supported by this grant is substantial, this 

additional staffing must be considered in the context of broader school-wide changes. 

Independently of the MEES grant, staffing at many of the schools has increased in recent years 

as a result of the budget increases previously discussed. As shown in Exhibit III-6, each of the 

Philadelphia schools received an influx of staff members between the baseline year (SY 2007– 

2008) and year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010). Although it is anticipated that staffing 

numbers will fall for year two of implementation (SY 2010–2011), they will still be higher than 

the baseline year (SY 2007–2008) numbers in all of the Philadelphia schools except for 

University City HS.6

 All of the Philadelphia schools are also experiencing simultaneous drops in 

enrollment, and therefore the declines in the student-to-staff ratios from the baseline year (SY 

2007–2008) to year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010) cannot be attributed entirely to the 

effects of the MEES grant.7

 For example, at FitzSimons HS, the staff-to-student ratio fell from 

9.2 to 5.7, but only one additional staff member was grant-funded. Therefore, a key line of 

analysis in the subsequent chapters will focus on how these schools used the grant-funded staff 

strategically, given that overall staffing levels were already increasing during this same time. 

Du Bois HS’s staffing levels have remained flat over the past two years if grant-funded positions 

are not taken into account. Therefore, the MEES grant was critical in helping the school increase 

staffing levels. In contrast, staffing levels at Berkshire JSHS have fallen in recent years, but the 

MEES grant allowed the school to fund staff positions that otherwise would have been lost. 

5	 Staffing in Philadelphia for 2010 Summer Bridge program was somewhat complicated. District funding was 

provided for school staff for the majority of the Summer Bridge program, and the grant only covered costs for 

seven days of programming. Therefore, even those school staff members who were full-time throughout the 

summer were only funded through the grant for part of the program. Because of these complications, we were 

not able to distinguish between FT and PT school staff members. 

6	 University City HS experienced the largest drop in enrollment out of all the Philadelphia schools during this time 

period, which may explain why staffing levels decreased. 

7	 SPR calculated this ratio by dividing the total enrollment for each school year by the total number of school 

staff, including grant-funded school staff. Contractor staff are not included in this count. 

III-11 
Exhibit III-6: 

Changes in the Number of School Staff Members Over Time 

(SY 2008–2009 to SY 2010–2011) 

III-12 
 

 

 

District and Intermediary Staff Members 

Grant funding also supports staff members in the districts and in one intermediary organization. 

Du Bois HS’s grant administrator is technically a district employee, although she is housed at the 

school and functions as a school employee. At BUFSD, because the district and school act 

essentially as the same entity, there is no clear distinction between district and school staff. In 

Philadelphia, grant funds support staff members in SDP’s Office of Multiple Pathways and in 

Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN), the CBO that manages the contracts for the SSCs and the 

student internship wages for all of the Philadelphia schools.8 Funding for these positions comes 

out of each of the seven schools’ grant budgets.9

 As shown in Exhibit III-7 below, staff members 

at SDP and PYN provide general oversight for grant programs, coordinate technical assistance 

and professional development, oversee reporting and data collection, and convene regular 

meetings for key staff members in the schools. Although the initiative is being moved to SDP’s 

Office of School Reform for year two of implementation (SY 2010–2011), district-level staffing 

will remain the same except for the addition of a math content specialist. 

Exhibit III-7: 

Other Grant Staffing in Philadelphia 

Staff Members Responsibilities 

School 

District of 

Philadelphia 

(Office of 

Multiple 

Pathways) 

 Director of Multiple Pathways to 

Graduation1 

 Program Managers (2 FTE) 

 Research Associate (1 FTE) 

 English Content Specialist (1 FTE) 

 Oversee schools’ hiring process, contracts, 

insurance-related needs, and grant budgets 

 Convene weekly TA meetings with the TAPs 

 Document and evaluate grant programs 

 Provide data to schools to inform decisionmaking 

 Coordinate between MEES programs and 

other district initiatives 

8	 Technically, the grant administrator at Du Bois HS is a district employee but is housed at the school and acts as a 

school employee. 

9	 PYN staff provide support for all of the SSCs in the district, including the four not funded by the MEES grant. 

Therefore, these positions are supported through a combination of the MEES grant and other funds. 

III-13 
Philadelphia 

Youth 

Network 

 Director of SSC (1 FTE) 

 Director of SSC Leadership 

Academy (.6 FTE) 

 Director of School/Community 

Partnerships (.45 FTE) 

 Vice President of Capacity Building 

(.1 FTE) 

 Vice-President of Education 

Innovations (.05 FTE) 

 Senior Business Partnership 

Specialist (1 FTE) 

 Operations Coordinator (1 FTE) 

 Oversee data collection and manage 

reporting 

 Provide fiscal oversight 

 Provide technical assistance 

 Convene monthly directors meetings 

 Coordinate professional development on a bimonthly basis 

 Recruit employers, place students in 

internships, and monitor worksites 

 

 

 

Staff Members Responsibilities 

1 Only a small percentage of this person’s position is supported through grant funds. 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

Although grantee schools were able to use grant funds to substantially staff up for year one of 

implementation (SY 2009–2010), the process was not without some challenges. 

	 Finding qualified and willing applicants for some positions proved to be 

difficult. For example, FitzSimons HS could not find applicants who were a 

good fit for two instructional specialist positions; SDP had trouble finding 

qualified applicants for the data specialist positions at each school; and some 

schools faced difficulties in finding teachers for the in-school suspension (ISS) 

programs because many teachers consider this position undesirable. 

	 Once qualified applicants were found, orienting them to their new schools 

and/or roles took considerable time. In many cases, staff members were not 

able to “hit the ground running” and required considerable ramp-up time to fully 

understand the nature of their new positions and/or to integrate into the fabric of 

the school. For example, at one school, considerable effort and time had to be put 

into creating a protocol that clearly defines and distinguishes the roles that case 

management staff members, teachers, and teaching assistants play in the 

classroom. These challenges highlight the imperative of starting the hiring 

process well in advance of when grant programs are slated to start. 

	 In some schools, the increase in staffing raised concerns about the 

sustainability of MEES programs and reforms after the sunset of the grant. 

Even in Philadelphia, where grant efforts are well-aligned with the 2014 strategic 

plan for SDP and staffing levels are increasing independently from the grant, 

schools will not likely be able to sustain these reduced class sizes or the 

wraparound services without the grant. School stakeholders hope, however, that 

the wave of reforms that MEES is bringing about will lead to a shift in the culture 

of the schools that can be sustained once the grant has ended. To begin to address 

this challenge, school leaders are thinking about how grant staffing can be tapered 

III-14 
off in year three of implementation (SY 2011–2012) and how critical reforms can 

be sustained past this year. 

Leadership 

School and grant leadership is essential to successful grant implementation. School reform 

requires strong leadership because it aims to shift the culture of the school, including most 

prominently the values, aspirations, and behaviors of teachers, students, parents, and other 

stakeholders. In the following sections, we describe the roles that leaders at the school level play 

in the implementation of the grant, and then we outline the associated challenges and lessons 

learned. 

School-level Leadership 

Leadership at each school is typically three-tiered, with the principal, Turnaround Assistant 

Principal/grant administrator (hereby referred to as the TAP), and Turnaround Team all playing 

roles. As mentioned earlier, the level of discretion that school leaders have over the MEES grant 

varies. In general, the principals and TAPs at the Philadelphia schools have less authority over 

issues such as curriculum selection, scheduling, and program development than their 

counterparts at Du Bois HS and Berkshire JSHS. Despite these differences, there are many 

similarities in how each school structured leadership for the grant. Below, we describe these 

similarities and point out some differences. 

Principal 

Principals of MEES schools play varying roles in grant administration and oversight. At 

Berkshire JSHS, the principal—who also served as the grant administrator for the first two years 

of the grant—plays a very hands-on role in overseeing grant programs. In some other schools, 

the principal also takes a fairly hands-on approach to the grant but works collaboratively with the 

TAP. In a few other schools, the principal defers to the TAP when it comes to the specifics of 

the grant, providing only general oversight on how the grant fits into a broader, school-wide 

vision. 

In six of the MEES schools, there has been no principal turnover since the start of the grant in the 

planning year (SY 2008–2009). In fact, in four of the schools, the current principal has been at 

the school for five or more years. This stability allows for consistent leadership and vision, both 

for the school and for the grant. On the other hand, Germantown HS and University City HS 

both received new principals for year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010), and West 

Philadelphia HS received a new principal for year two of implementation (SY 2010–2011). 

Principal turnover has both positive and negative repercussions for grant implementation. On 

III-15 
 

 

 

one hand, new principals often come in with fresh ideas and energy for reforming the schools. 

At the same time, however, new principals require considerable ramp-up time to become 

acquainted with the students, staff members, and reform efforts at the school, and principal 

turnover often creates a sense of instability for staff members and students. In the case of 

Germantown HS, for instance, the new principal took some time to become oriented to the 

requirements of the MEES grant, and this caused some tension at this school in the first year of 

grant implementation. 

Turnaround Assistant Principal/Grant Administrator 

Although the MEES grant does not require it, seven of the nine schools created a TAP position. 

And while not called a TAP, the grant administrator at Du Bois HS plays a TAP-like role. As 

mentioned above, the principal at Berkshire JSHS played the role of grant administrator for the 

first two years of the grant, and the workforce development lead will assume administrator 

responsibilities moving forward. In all but three schools, there has been no turnover in the TAP 

position. In two schools, a new TAP was brought in when the previous TAP took over other 

administrative responsibilities in the school. In a third school, the TAP was let go and the 

principal—as of the summer 2010 site visit—had taken over some TAP responsibilities and 

distributed others to “teacher leaders” within the school. 

Each TAP has a number of responsibilities within his or her school. As grant administrators, 

they are responsible for collecting data, reporting, overseeing the budget, and managing the 

contractors for the grant. In many cases, they also play a broader instructional leadership role by 

developing and disseminating a broader vision for grant reforms, garnering teacher buy-in, and 

supporting staff in effectively implementing key reforms. Additionally, in all but three schools, 

the TAP holds another official administrative position in the school as well. Three TAPs are also 

the principals of the Ninth Grade Academy, and two TAPs also oversee the Oasis program.10 As 

will be discussed in more detail in the challenges section, several TAPs feel that playing these 

multiple roles diminishes their ability to be effective grant administrators. To alleviate this 

problem, two schools each recently hired a program coordinator to assist the TAP. 

Turnaround Teams 

ETA’s Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) for the MEES grant required that each grant be 

led by a Turnaround Team (TT). The role of the TT is to guide planning and implementation 

throughout the term of the grant, often by establishing subcommittees focused on specific aspects 

10	 Oasis is a “school within a school” for overage, under-credit students. Although it was part of these schools’ 

original grant budgets, for year one of implementation (SY 2009–2010) it was not grant-funded. 

III-16 
 

 

of grant implementation. TTs consist of a combination of school leaders, community members, 

school staff, teachers, students, and/or parents. The TT can be viewed as a change strategy in 

and of itself, in that it supports collaborative decision-making, promotes buy-in, and contributes 

to a professional culture of high expectations and group accountability. 

Berkshire JSHS is the only school that does not currently have an active TT team. Instead, a 

management team consisting of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and director of 

technology and curriculum meet regularly to make most of the decisions about the grant. 

However, the MEES grant has led to more opportunities for distributed leadership at Berkshire 

JSHS through the creation of a teacher leadership committee. The three teachers on this 

committee dedicate all of their time to supporting the school’s teachers, by providing 

professional development, developing sample lesson plans, conducting classroom observations, 

and reviewing students’ academics and test scores.11 

At the other schools, the TTs all played very active leadership roles during the first year of 

implementation. Now, at the beginning of year two, some differences in activity levels have 

developed. At about half of the schools, the TTs continue to meet monthly. At Du Bois HS, the 

monthly meetings give teachers, school staff, and contractor staff opportunities to provide 

updates on their programs and discuss the needs of specific students. At University City HS, the 

TT continues to meet monthly, but membership has been reconstituted; this is because the TAP, 

aware that much of the staff would be leaving at the end of the 2009–2010 school year because 

of the school’s designation as a Renaissance School, asked inactive members of the TT to step 

down and invited staff members who were likely to stay at the school to join the committee. In 

the rest of the schools, subcommittees continue to meet regularly, but the TT in its entirety does 

not. For example, at Germantown HS, the TT is not regularly meeting as a whole, but the 

stakeholder, mentoring, summer bridge, and in-school suspension subcommittees each continue 

to meet on a regular basis. 

Key Challenges 

Given the multiple layers of district- and school-level leadership for this grant, it is not surprising 

that challenges arose. Below we discuss these challenges in more detail, including those related 

to the rolling out of district-level reforms, the nature of the TAP position, and the ability of 

leaders to develop and disseminate a shared vision for the grant. 

11	 Due to funding cuts, for year two of implementation (SY 2010–2011), these teachers will likely spend half of 

their time in the classroom. 

III-17 
 

 

 

Challenges Related to District-wide Reforms 

The district-wide reforms that SDP is implementing at the same time as the MEES grant have the 

potential to complement grant initiatives—and many did. However, in some cases, they forced 

school leaders to reshuffle grant plans, often at the last minute. For example, Philadelphia school 

leaders were informed on the first day of the implementation year (SY 2009–2010) about a new 

corrective reading and math program. As a result, school staff members had to individually test 

each ninth grade student and then re-roster their classes based on the results. Likewise, school 

leaders were not informed until May that all field trips for 2010 Summer Bridge had to occur 

during the last week of the program, after many of the TAPs had already planned field trips for 

other times. The Renaissance Schools Initiative was arguably one of the largest district-level 

reforms that occurred during grant implementation. As part of this initiative, West Philadelphia 

HS and University City HS were slated to be taken over by the district or a charter school 

organization for second year of implementation (SY 2010–2011).12 This decreased morale for 

both staff and students at these two schools, and the expected staffing changes resulting from the 

takeover created uncertainty about the sustainability of grant reforms. Because of the nature of 

the other two districts’ relationships with the schools (BUFSD being essentially the same entity 

as Berkshire JSHS and BCPS taking a fairly hands-off approach to grant management), similar 

challenges have not arisen in these districts. 

Challenges Faced by the Turnaround Assistant Principals 

As outlined below, the nature of the TAP positions also presents its own inherent set of 

challenges. 

	 Only two TAPs had previous experience working at the target school when they 

started their positions.13 The others had to work very hard to build relationships 

and trust among veteran teachers and ramp up for their new administrative roles. 

(Although Du Bois HS’s TAP was new to the school, she was able to ramp up 

efforts more quickly because of her experience managing DOL’s School District 

Grant for the district.) 

	 Due to the fact that the position is grant funded, some TAPs also expressed 

concern over the prospect of long-term employment, and in the first two years of 

the grant, two TAPs had left the position for other, presumably more secure 

administrator jobs. 

12	 The Renaissance process at West Philadelphia HS ended up being delayed for a year due to problems in the 

selection process. However, by the time this announcement was made, many staff members had already found 

positions at other schools. 

13	 One of these two TAPs has since been laid off. The other started in the middle of SY 2009–2010 to replace the 

previous TAP, who took another administrator position in the school. 

III-18 
	 Further compounding this challenge is the fact that most of the TAPs also play 

other administrative roles in the building. As a ninth grade teacher at one school 

explained, this further strains the TAP’s limited capacity: 

The TAP is doing two roles, which is challenging for [the TAP] 

because both are demanding positions... [The TAP is] usually out 

one day a week [for the MEES grant], so the ninth grade 

administrator isn’t here most of the time. 

One TAP reported that he is behind on his paperwork for a budget modification to 

the district, and as a result, the grant budget has not yet been approved. Another 

TAP said she works very long hours to ensure that the paperwork for DOL and 

the Ninth Grade Academy are completed on time. In addition to the difficulties of 

handling two jobs adequately, the TAPs in Philadelphia are away from the school 

campus at least one day a week to attend weekly district meetings. Respondents 

noted that having a school administrator out of the office so frequently makes it 

difficult for schools to implement new programs and address the school crises that 

often arise. The principal/superintendent at Berkshire JSHS faced similar 

challenges with regard to competing demands for his time, resulting in his handoff of the grant administrator duties for the second year of implementation (SY 

2010–2011). However, at least one TAP felt that being the principal of the Ninth 

Grade Academy is constructive because it gives her more oversight over the ninth 

grade teachers and social workers, who are integral to grant implementation. 

Leadership Challenges 

Various rough spots during the first year of grant implementation reinforce the importance of 

school leaders in guiding schools through the kinds of comprehensive changes being attempted 

through the MEES grant. Although grant leadership has been effective overall, some leaders 

could have done a better job of communicating about and helping to coordinate grant-funded 

reforms. Given that funding from the MEES grant is dispersed across a number of strategies, a 

preliminary but critical step in the process of garnering school-wide buy-in is making sure that 

the school staff is aware that the various grant reforms are happening. At several schools, some 

aspects of grant reforms were somewhat isolated from one another, simply because not all staff 

in the building knew they were occurring. For example, at the time of the third site visit to one 

school, ninth grade teachers did not know that the grant-funded social worker targets ninth grade 

students and therefore is a potential resource for them. Several schools are addressing similar 

challenges by widely distributing newsletters summarizing the implementation status of different 

components of the grant. For example, Du Bois HS distributes a monthly MEES newsletter that 

contains updates on grant programs written by members of the TT. 

III-19 
Contractors 

Schools are working with a number of contractors to provide grant services. For the mentoring 

and case management components of the grant, ETA’s SGA required that all of the schools 

contract with CBOs with expertise in the given strategy. Some schools also chose to contract 

with additional CBOs because of their specialized expertise in education and school climate. In 

a few cases, schools had pre-existing strong relationships with local CBOs they wished to 

continue. 

Contractor Selection and Management 

In the guidelines for the grant, DOL encouraged the use of a competitive process for selecting 

sub-grantees or contractors, and grantees have generally taken this approach. However, in SDP, 

this process has been slower than anticipated. SDP awarded Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN) 

a contract to oversee and subcontract all the SSCs, but PYN could not release the RFP for 

subcontractors until August 2009. SDP did not release its own RFQ for mentoring, education, 

and career coordination/student employment contractors until September 2009. As a result, 

while some partners were able to start in the Philadelphia schools in late 2009, most programs at 

these schools were not fully up and running until well into 2010. At the time of the third site 

visit (spring 2010), a number of contractors still did not have signed contracts with SDP. 

Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS, which both worked mainly with CBOs with whom they had 

strong, pre-existing relationships, were able to ramp-up partnerships more quickly, although Du 

Bois HS did face some initial delays in getting contracts signed. In the case of Du Bois HS, 

many of the partners previously worked with the district and the TAP on DOL’s School District 

Grant. Berkshire JSHS is somewhat unique in that the school is integrally connected with the 

only contractor for the grant—the Berkshire Farm Centers for Services and Youth, which runs 

the residential treatment facility for the school’s students. 

Schools are taking varying approaches to managing contractors. For most of the CBOs, the TAP 

is the main point of contact within the school, providing oversight for their work, providing input 

on program design, serving as an intermediary between CBO staff and school staff, and helping 

CBO staff secure school resources (e.g., classroom space) as needed. In some cases, lead CBO 

staff members are also members of the TT or coordinate directly with specific subcommittees of 

the TT. In the case of several of the mentoring programs in Philadelphia, a designated faculty 

liaison helps the mentoring contractor staff member navigate in the school. 

III-20 
Role of Contractors 

Each school is working with at least one contractor to provide grant-funded services and most 

work with several. As shown in Exhibit III-8, all the schools work with contractors for 

employment/case management services and mentoring services. However, only five schools 

work with contractors in the education strategy, and only three work with contractors for the 

school climate strategy. In some cases, schools are working with more than one contractor in 

order to diversify the services in a given strategy. 

Exhibit III-8: 

Presence of Contractors by Strategy in Year One of Implementation (SY 2009–2010) 

Employment/ School 

Education Case Management Climate Mentoring 

Bartram HS   

Berkshire JSHS  

Du Bois HS   

FitzSimons HS   

Germantown HS   

Lincoln HS   

Overbrook HS    

University City HS   

West Philadelphia HS  

Total # of schools with 

contractors for this strategy 5 9 3 9 

It is important to note that most of the school-year contractors also provided services during the 

2010 summer program, although the depth of services varied. Four schools also brought in 

additional contractors over the summer to provide enrichment classes such as video production 

or puppetry. The summer programs, including the role of contractors, will be discussed in more 

detail in Chapter IV. Exhibit III-9 and the section below provides a model for understanding the 

depth of contractors role within the schools during the first year of grant implementation. 

III-21 
Exhibit III-9: 

Model for Understanding Depth of Contractor Involvement for 

Year One of Implementation (SY 2009–2010) 

The following observations can be made about the roles of contractors in the grant: 

	 Employment and case management contractors are among the most critical 

providers for this grant. Each school is working with one or more CBO 

contractors in this area, and in most cases, these contractors have several staff 

members housed full-time at the schools. In the Philadelphia schools, the 

employment/case management staff runs the SSCs. These staff members provide 

job readiness workshops, link students with internships, and help students prepare 

for college. Additionally, through a contract with Social Work Connections, a 

social worker/re-engagement specialist is housed at each SSC. Du Bois HS’s 

employment/case management contractors similarly provide job readiness 

training, link students with internships, provide substance abuse counseling, and 

run an anger management group. Berkshire JSHS has no case management 

contractors, but staff from Berkshire Farms help to coordinate and provide student 

internships. 

	 Each school is working with one or more contractors to run the mentoring 

programs. These providers are responsible for recruiting and enrolling mentors 

and mentees as well as overseeing the mentoring relationships. The majority of 

mentoring contractor staff members are housed full time at the school. At Du 

Bois HS, Overbrook HS, and Lincoln HS more than one organization provides 

mentoring services. At Du Bois HS, four different contractors help oversee the 

III-22 
 

 

 

 

community mentoring programs in order to recruit a critical mass of adult 

mentors. Overbrook HS and Lincoln HS both have six mentoring staff members 

each: two staff members from one contractor are responsible for the more 

traditional mentoring program, and four staff members from another contractor 

serve as hall monitors and informal in-school mentors.14 

	 Education and school climate contractors are only working in a limited 

number of schools and are providing fewer of the core services for these 

strategies.15 Five schools are working with education contractors. These 

providers do not have staff housed full time at the schools and only provide 

supplemental education services such as SAT preparation or science enrichment 

opportunities. Du Bois HS is somewhat the exception, as an organizational 

facilitator from Talent Developmental High School (TDHS) works part time at 

the school to help implement the TDHS model. Although a number of schools 

planned to contract with a CBO to provide school climate-related services, the 

majority of these services were not up and running at the time of the third site 

visit. 

Key Challenges 

Schools faced a number of challenges in selecting and managing contractors: 

	 In the Philadelphia schools, there were delays in both contractor selection 

and the finalization of contracts. Delays in the release of the RFQ meant that 

most contractors did not start working in the schools until November or December 

of 2009. As a result, given the time needed for hiring staff members and general 

ramp-up, most contracted services did not truly launch until well into 2010. 

Starting in the middle of the school year contributed to the broader challenges 

many CBOs faced in integrating into the school. As previously mentioned, 

although Du Bois HS faced initial delays in getting contracts signed, Du Bois HS 

and Berkshire JSHS were able to move more quickly with contractors, primarily 

because of their strong, pre-existing relationships with them. 

	 Some contractor staff members housed full time in the schools reported 

difficulty integrating into the school. In some cases, it took a good deal of time 

for contractor staff members to get the facilities needed to be able to adequately 

do their jobs. For example, one mentoring staff member reported that she worked 

in the library during her first few weeks at the school because no office space had 

been prepared for her. Similarly, a lack of computers, phone lines, and private 

14	 Although these staff members are contracted for mentoring services, school leaders considered their work as 

overlapping with school climate services. In at least one case, the TAP was trying to get this CBO’s mentoring 

contract switched to a school climate contract. 

15	 At Overbrook HS and University City HS, contractors were supposed to provide staff members for Oasis, a 

school-within-a-school for overage, under-credit youth. Despite the fact that it was in the grant budget for SY 

2009–2010, grant funds did not support this program. Instead, these programs were supported solely through 

other district funds. 

III-23 
 

space to meet with students were re-occurring challenges across many of the 

SSCs. Several contractor staff members also reported that being an outside CBO 

working in a school comes with its own inherent set of challenges, including 

building rapport with school staff and ensuring that there is a clear understanding 

of and buy-in for their role in the school. Starting in the middle of the school year 

made it even more difficult for contractor staff to integrate into the school because 

the school staff and students had already established their rhythms for the year. 

Having a faculty liaison for contractors was an effective strategy for alleviating 

some of these challenges. 

As a final note, contracted services are typically difficult to sustain after grant funding ends. 

Because the MEES grant is still relatively early in its implementation, this has not yet presented 

itself as a challenge. However, moving forward, schools will have to pay special attention to 

sustainability plans for the employment/case management and mentoring strategies because of 

their relatively strong reliance on contractors. 

Summary of Findings 

As demonstrated in this chapter, schools have made considerable progress in grant 

implementation, having hired the majority of school staff and brought on a number of contractors 

to help run grant programs. The first two years of the grant have yielded a number of important 

findings. Firstly, the time needed to implement these types of reforms is considerable. As some 

schools learned, the process of identifying and contracting with CBOs, hiring staff, and getting 

new staff oriented to the school can take longer than expected. Due to the delays, one school 

leader summed up the first year of implementation as a “waiting game.” School leaders and staff 

members were eager to start the second year of implementation (SY 2010–2011) with the 

majority of grant programs in place. Additionally, the first two years of the grant reinforced the 

fact that strong leadership is critical for grant implementation and ensuring cohesion between 

various stakeholders’ visions for the grant. School leaders are not only responsible for 

facilitating the creation of and disseminating a shared vision, but also for ensuring that school 

and contractor staff are clear about their roles and how their work fits into the broader vision for 

reform. This level of clarity and communication is also critical for district-level leadership. In 

some cases, Philadelphia schools were forced to change grant plans in order to align with 

broader, district-wide reform efforts. Finally, because schools’ budgets and staffing increased 

independently from the MEES grant, examining the added value of the MEES grant requires 

looking beyond additional funding and staffing, to analyzing the way that the grant shifted the 

culture and systems within the schools. 

III-24 
IV. EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES 

The MEES grant provides an opportunity for grantee schools to develop educational reforms and 

interventions that address students’ educational barriers and strengthen instructional practices. 

Consistent with DOL’s expectations for the MEES grant, schools are implementing educational 

interventions that involve the whole school, while targeting specific groups of at-risk youth such 

as entering and repeating ninth graders and youth who are failing classes or struggling to keep up 

with the demands of high school. Schools are making significant strides in implementing these 

efforts, creating systems for supporting teachers, establishing small learning communities, and 

connecting struggling students with appropriate interventions. This chapter summarizes the 

educational reforms and interventions that schools are implementing. It describes the specific 

types of students who are targeted for these reforms and interventions, the educational reforms 

and interventions themselves, and the key partners that are involved. The chapter concludes with 

a discussion of challenges and lessons learned. 

Overview of Educational Strategies 

Together, the educational reforms and interventions described in this chapter have the potential 

to directly influence the quality of instruction and, ultimately, students’ success. It is therefore 

not surprising that schools are devoting a large portion of their grant resources to educational 

strategies—an average of about 39 percent or about $20,378,050. Several schools are spending 

at least half of their grant dollars just on educational strategies alone. Bartram HS and 

University City HS, for example, are devoting over 50 percent of their budgets to teacher 

salaries, contracted services, professional development, facility costs, supplies, equipment, and 

other costs associated with implementing educational reforms and interventions. Other schools 

are also spending most of their funding on hiring new teachers in an effort to reduce class size, 

and to “staff up” the classes that need the most teacher support, such as remedial reading and 

math. 

IV-1 
Target Groups 

Most of the educational reforms and interventions that schools have designed are aimed at 

specific groups of students who are the most at risk of school failure, such as entering and 

repeating ninth graders and students who face the greatest challenges with behavior, truancy, and 

poor academic performance. As shown in Exhibit IV-1, the majority of the interventions are 

targeting ninth graders, who face the most challenges with school transition. It is for this reason 

that many schools have established the Ninth Grade Success Academy, the summer bridge 

program, and remedial reading and math geared towards ninth graders. 

The educational interventions are also designed for students in other grades who are overage and 

under-credit. These students may have repeated a grade, and most have low attendance and high 

absenteeism; as a result, they are behind on their credits and need interventions to get back on 

track. Schools are providing credit retrieval programs for this subgroup of students, especially 

repeating ninth graders, through a self-contained school-within-a-school format in which they 

receive specialized support. 

Some of the educational strategies operate directly on teachers and are designed to strengthen 

instructional practices through ongoing support and collaboration. These efforts, which include 

instructional coaching, professional development, and common planning time, are focused on 

improving the quality of teaching so that students stay connected to school and are motivated to 

succeed. Since these strategies involve schools’ entire faculties, their ultimate beneficiaries— 

whom we would term their target groups—are students generally. 

The Seven Groups of Educational Strategies 

Schools have used grant funds to support a variety of educational reforms and interventions that 

can be clustered into seven major categories: (1) hiring new teachers, (2) increasing teacher 

effectiveness, (3) remediating poor academic performance, (4) facilitating credit retrieval, (5) 

reconstituting schools as academies, (6) providing instructional and curricular supports, and (7) 

offering summer programs. As shown in Exhibit IV-1, each strategy is focused on a particular 

target group. (Note that in this exhibit, “target group” is defined as the group intended to receive 

the ultimate benefit of the intervention.) 

IV-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit IV-1: 

Educational Strategies and their Target Groups 

Ninth Grade 

Students 

Overage 

Under-credit 

Students All Students 

Hiring new teachers   

Increasing teacher 

effectiveness   

Remediating poor 

academic 

performance 

 

Facilitating credit 

retrieval 

Reconstituting 

schools as 

academies 

  

Providing 

instructional and 

curricular supports 

  

Offering summer 

programs 

 

Many of these strategies have not been newly created as a result of the MEES grant. However, 

where this is the case, the grant expanded reforms and/or services within these categories and, in 

some cases, served as a catalyst for the initiation of new reform efforts. For instance, some of 

the career academies were established prior to the MEES grant but the grant is enabling the 

schools to transform the academies into cohesive, small learning communities with small class 

sizes. Further, many schools offered credit retrieval programs prior to the MEES grant, but 

expanded the scope of these programs, both in terms of increased enrollment and enhanced 

services. The grant’s ability to complement and expand upon existing efforts is shown in Exhibit 

IV-2, which summarizes the reforms and interventions that are district-funded, as shown by “D,” 

and those that are grant-funded, as shown by a check mark (). The exhibit shows that the grant 

is funding portions of district-wide initiatives, such as remedial reading and math and credit 

recovery programs. For instance, the School District of Philadelphia is mandating that schools 

offer a “double dose” of reading and math through the corrective reading and math program. 

Three schools are using grant funds to pay for the salaries of several teachers of this program. 

Grant funds also allow schools to enhance students’ summer school experiences by paying for 

field trips and other enrichment activities. 

IV-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit IV-2: 

Distribution and Funding of Educational Strategies 

The legend for this table is as follows: 

=grant funded, D=district initiative, *=Talent Development High School. Bartram HS Berkshire JSHS Du Bois HS FitzSimons HS Germantown HS Lincoln HS Overbrook HS

University 

City HS

West

Philadelphia

HS 

Hiring New Teachers 

 Hiring new teachers        

Increasing Teacher Effectiveness 

 Instructional coaches 

 Professional development 

 Common planning time 

D 



D 













D 



D 

D 



D 

D 



D 

D 



D 

D 



D 

D 



D 

Remediating Poor Academic Performance 

 Remedial reading/math 

 Afterschool remedial program 

D 

 

D D D D 



D 



D 

Facilitating Credit Retrieval 

 Remedial classes during school 

 Saturday School 

 Twilight school 

 Extended school day 

 OASIS 



D 





 D 

D 



D 

 

D 

D D 



Reconstituting Schools as Academies 

 Ninth Grade Academy 

 Career Academies 



D 

* 

D 



D 



D 



D 

* 

D 

Providing Instructional and Curricular Supports 

 Online curriculum 

 New technology 

 Student incentives and awards 

 Enrichment activities 























































Offering Summer Programs 

 Summer Bridge 

 Summer school 

D 

D  D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

IV-4 
 

 

 

 

 

1 The grant is supporting a portion teachers’ time during common planning time at Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS. In Philadelphia, 

common planning time is now mandated by the district and as a result, this activity is not funded by the grant. 

2 OASIS is a credit retrieval program for overage, under-credit students. It operates as a self-contained school-within- a-school and is 

managed by a CBO. 

3 The Ninth Grade Success Academy at Germantown HS was not implemented in SY 2009-2010, but there are plans to implement it in SY 

2010-2011. 

Hiring New Teachers 

All of the grantees except for one (FitzSimons HS), hired additional teachers with the MEES 

grant.1 Overall, the schools hired a total of 74 teachers. Some schools are planning to hire more 

teachers in SY 2010–2011.2 Sixty teachers have been hired full time, and 14 have been hired 

part time. Most teachers are hired directly by the school districts (59 full time and six part time), 

and a few are hired by subcontractors (one full time and eight part time). The decision to hire 

teachers through subcontracting arrangements or through the district depends partly on the 

teachers’ roles in the grant. Those teachers who are teaching the district-mandated initiatives, 

such as double doses of reading and math, are hired directly by the district. Teachers who are 

hired by subcontractors are teaching classes/programs that have been developed through the 

support of the MEES grant, such as the Ninth Grade Success Academy at Du Bois HS. 

Exhibit IV-3 shows that schools have been steadily increasing the number of teachers hired even 

prior to the MEES grant, especially in SY 2008–2009, thanks to a variety of other grants from 

the district, such as the Empowerment Schools Initiative. 3 

1	 FitzSimons HS has not hired teachers yet but plans to hire instructional specialists in math and English in SY 

2010–2011. The school has been actively looking to fill these positions but has not been able to find the right 

candidates. 

2	 Several schools faced delays in hiring teachers in SY 2009-2010 and hope to fill additional teaching positions in 

SY 2010–2011. 

3	 The Empowerment Schools in Philadelphia are those that have not achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

targets under the No Child Left Behind guidelines, and are in Corrective Action Level II (CA-II), including those 

making progress in CA-II for the 2008–9 school year. In 2008, 85 schools in the School District of Philadelphia 

have been designated as Empowerment Schools, enabling them to receive intensive interventions offered by the 

district. 

IV-5 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit IV-3: 

Number of Teachers 

Below are other key findings related to the number of teachers hired: 

	 Nearly all of the schools increased their teaching staffs during the first year 

of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). The increase in teachers is most 

noticeable at the Philadelphia schools, where additional teachers were hired to 

teach new programs that were introduced by the district, such as corrective 

reading and math and the A&B Schedule.4
 

	 The number of teachers decreased somewhat in SY 2010–2011 at five schools 

where we have data, due to declining enrollment. However, the MEES grant 

The A&B schedule breaks core classes of Algebra and English 1 into semesters. If a student does not pass the 

first semester (English 1A or Algebra 1A), then he or she does not move onto the second semester (English 1B 

or Algebra 1B). The Philadelphia schools now need to offer English 1A and Algebra 1A again in the spring for 

students who did not pass it in the fall. This means that the Philadelphia schools needed to hire extra teachers to 

teach the duplicate courses. 

IV-6 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

enabled the schools to sustain and/or increase the number of teachers from SY 

2008–2009 to SY 2010–2011. 

	 The overall increase in teachers is occurring despite declining enrollment 

between the pre-grant baseline year (2007–2008) and the first year of 

implementation.5 University City saw the largest decrease in enrollment among 

the grantee schools, yet hired the greatest number of teachers through the grant 

(14).6

 Lincoln HS also hired a large number of teachers from the grant (12) even 

though its enrollment declined by about 23 percent in this same period. 

Hiring additional teachers is directly intended to meet two specific objectives identified by the 

schools: (1) reduce class size, especially in the ninth grade, and (2) fill critical staffing needs in 

core subjects. 

Objective: Reduce Class Size 

As a result of additional teachers, many of the classes at target schools have been drastically 

reduced. At Germantown HS, the MEES grant is used to hire three English teachers, two math 

teachers, a foreign language teacher, and three science teachers in order to reduce class size in 

the ninth and eleventh grades to about 15–20 students per class.7 At University City HS, seven 

teachers have been hired (mostly science and social science teachers) to reduce class size in the 

ninth and eleventh grades from about 40 students per class to no more than 20 students. At 

Bartram HS, the hiring of extra teachers through the MEES grant is keeping the ninth grade 

classes to an average of about 22 students per class. At Du Bois HS, the MEES grant paid for 

three extra fulltime teachers for the Ninth Grade Academy, which helps to keep class sizes at 

approximately 13 students per class. 

Hiring additional teachers did not always directly reduce class size; however, it is contributing to 

a decrease in the student-to-teacher ratio, as shown in Exhibit IV-4. Class sizes at Berkshire 

JSHS have always been somewhat small, with an average of about 12–16 students per class. 

Rather than further reducing the class size, Berkshire JSHS reduced the student-to-teacher ratio 

by using some of the grant funds to hire behavioral management specialists, who assist teachers 

with classroom management. As a result, the student-to-teacher ratio at Berkshire JSHS is about 

5	 All of the schools experienced declining enrollment from SY 2007-2008 to SY 2009-2010 except for Du Bois 

HS, which saw a small increase in enrollment in the same period. 

6	 At University City HS, 13 teachers were hired by the district and one was hired by a contractor. 

7	 One English teacher and one math teacher were originally hired as instructional coaches. They were re-assigned 

to teach classes when other teaching positions within the school were cut. 

IV-7 
 

 

 

 

12 to 3 (one behavior management specialist, one teacher’s assistant, and one teacher for every 

12 students.) 

Exhibit IV-4: 

Student-to-Teacher Ratio 

The student-to-teacher ratio at the grantee schools is, on average, lower than the state and 

national averages. At the Philadelphia schools, the student-to-teacher ratio is similar to the most 

recent state average for elementary and secondary schools combined, which is 15.2 to 1.8 

Nationally, the student-to-teacher ratio for public schools at the secondary level is about 16.2 to 

See http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_ele_sec_pup_rat-elementary-secondary-pupil-teacher-ratio, 

downloaded on October 11, 2010. This number is calculated using the total reported students divided by the 

FTE classroom teachers. 

IV-8 

8 
 

 

 

 

1,9 which is higher than the ratio at most grantee schools. The exception is Du Bois HS, where 

the student-to-teacher ratio is higher than both the national average and Maryland’s average of 

15.8 to 1. 

Reducing class size is an appealing strategy for the schools because it sends dollars directly into 

the classroom and promotes a personalized and supportive environment for learning. Ample 

research shows that small class size improves the class climate and allows teachers to spend 

more time on instruction and less on classroom management. One study found that students in 

smaller classes can receive more individualized attention, while their teachers have more 

flexibility to use different instructional approaches and assignments.10 Other studies have shown 

that small class size allows teachers to better monitor students’ progress in reading and be more 

consistent in managing behavior.11 There is some debate among researchers about whether 

reducing class size can make a difference in student achievement, and under what circumstances 

it does. SPR’s evaluation is not measuring the effects of class size reduction on student 

achievement. However, both students and teachers indicated that smaller class size is having a 

positive effect on the classroom climate. One ninth grade English teacher at Bartram HS 

believes that the smaller class size has helped her build positive relationships with the students 

and their families. This same teacher also indicated that she knows where each child is in the 

learning process and can provide more individualized instruction. 

With small classes, you can be more successful working with the students, 

especially when you have better access to them. When you have 40 

students in your class like last year, you don’t realize that some students 

were even in your class. 

Although the benefits of smaller class size have been shown in a number of studies, it is not easy 

for the schools to reduce class size, even with sufficient grant funding, because it is often 

difficult to recruit and retain qualified teachers. Since teacher turnover at the schools is generally 

very high, the need to continually recruit new teachers magnifies the challenges that are already 

facing the schools. At University City HS, for example, many teachers applied for new positions 

elsewhere upon learning that they will all need to re-apply for their jobs as a result of the 

9	 Center for Education Reform. http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/. Downloaded on October 11, 

2010. 

10	 Mosteller, Frederick, Richard J. Light, and Jason A. Sachs. 1996. "Sustained Inquiry in Education: Lessons from 

Skill Grouping and Class Size." Harvard Educational Review 66 (4): 797-842. 

11	 Carolyn M. Evertson and John K. Folger, Small Class, Large Class: What Do Teachers Do Differently?, paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, March 1989. 

IV-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

district’s plan to turn the school into a Renaissance School.12 As a result, the school will need to 

hire more teachers than expected. Although SDP policy indicates that 50 percent of newly hired 

teachers can be “site-selected,” which means that principals have the liberty to screen and select 

teachers at their discretion, the remaining 50 percent of teachers must be selected by the district 

without the input of the school principals. This policy can be challenging, according to some 

school principals, because they are unable to assess the teachers’ buy-in for the reform strategies 

that are underway. 

Objective: Fill Critical Teaching Positions 

The MEES grant is enabling schools to fill a number of teaching positions for new 

programs/initiatives. In Philadelphia, extra teachers needed to be hired to teach corrective 

reading and math, a district-mandated program. Lincoln HS, for instance, has hired 12 new 

teachers and University City HS has hired 13 teachers exclusively to teach corrective reading and 

math classes. At Germantown HS, the MEES grant is not paying for teachers exclusively to 

teach corrective reading and math, but is paying for about 11 new teachers to fill many of the 

core positions that have been vacant for some time in the areas of math, English, and science. 

Prior to the MEES grant, Germantown HS had difficulty hiring teachers for these subjects, and 

consequently used a number of long-term substitutes. 

The newly hired teachers are teaching a variety of subjects across grade levels, though most of 

them have been concentrated in the ninth grade. In fact, six schools are specifically assigning 

new teachers to teach ninth grade English and math.13 As mentioned previously, several schools 

in Philadelphia have also made a concerted effort to spread the grant funds to eleventh grade 

classes, to reduce class size for students who are taking the PSSA tests. 14 

12	 Renaissance Schools will undergo substantial changes, including changes in leadership, teachers, and other staff. 

This means that all University City HS teachers need to reapply for their jobs and only 50% of them will be 

rehired. The district will also bring in CBOs to lead the transformation of the schools, or the school can be 

designated an innovation-run school that will be operated by the district. Schools will also be expected to have 

longer days, provide a quality curriculum and student enrichment programs during and after school, and make 

other changes to the academic program and school environment. 

13	 These schools include: Berkshire JSHS, Du Bois HS, Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, Overbrook HS, and 

University City HS. 

14	 The annual Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) is a standards-based assessment used to measure 

students’ attainment of the academic standards. At the secondary school level, the test is administered in the 

eleventh grade. 

IV-10 
 

 

 

 

Additional teachers have been hired to teach credit recovery classes, either after school or at the 

Twilight Schools, a specialized program for students who failed or faced difficulty in a normal 

school setting. Students who attend credit recovery classes are usually under-credit and overage. 

At Berkshire JSHS, several teachers have also been hired to teach credit recovery after school, 

during the extended learning time that the grant is funding. 

In sum, the additional teaching positions are creating new opportunities for schools to focus on 

two core objectives of the MEES grant—to create an environment in which every student 

becomes engaged in learning and allows the teacher to attend to every student and to work 

towards improving academic achievement by staffing up the classes where students need the 

most support. 

Increasing Teacher Effectiveness 

The grant is funding strategies to strengthen teaching and learning by providing instructional 

coaches and ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers. These strategies are 

designed to help teachers develop new skills and to foster collaboration and communication 

among members of each school’s teaching staff. 

Five schools are using grant funding to hire a total of seven full-time instructional coaches and 

one part-time coach.15 An instructional coach is someone whose primary responsibility is to offer 

teachers ongoing support by modeling effective teaching strategies, improving classroom 

management, and providing substantive and supportive feedback. Research shows that 

improving teachers’ classroom practices has great potential to improve student learning, and 

coaching is increasingly being used as a strategy to improve instructional practices.16 

All of the Philadelphia schools have access to instructional coaches who have been hired by the 

school district as part of a district-wide effort to support low-performing schools. As part of this 

effort, Empowerment Schools are required to have common planning time, which is often led by 

instructional coaches. Some grantee schools are increasing the number of coaches with the grant 

funds. 

15	 These schools and the number of coaches hired through the grant are as follows: Bartram HS, 2 coaches; 

Berkshire JSHS, 3 coaches; Du Bois HS, 1 coach; Overbrook HS, 1 coach; West Philadelphia HS, 1 coach. All 

of the coaches work full time except the coach at Du Bois HS who works part time. 

16	 Kowal, J. and Steiner, L. (September, 2007). Issue Brief — Instructional Coaching. Washington, DC: The 

Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. 

IV-11 
Coaching practices vary widely among the schools. Coaches may train teachers to use a 

particular approach to teach a content area, work to improve general instructional practices, or 

promote a more reflective, collaborative, and professional culture among the faculty. 

Specifically, the instructional coaches pull out teachers to do one-on-one intensive coaching on 

lesson planning and differentiated instruction, as well as to help with curriculum development. 

The coaches may also co-teach with new and seasoned teachers to model effective practices. 

School leaders reported that having instructional coaches is a useful strategy for supporting many 

teachers who have recently been hired. New teachers confirm this belief, indicating that they 

especially value the extra training to further develop their skills. Some of the new teachers at 

one school, for instance, do not feel well prepared to teach and appear to be struggling somewhat 

in dealing with the discipline issues that surface daily. As a result, the teachers meet with the 

instructional coach weekly to discuss ways to improve classroom management. 

The extent to which instructional coaching is changing teachers’ practices is difficult to assess at 

this time. However, some anecdotal evidence suggests that instructional coaching may be 

contributing to increased collaboration among teachers. At West Philadelphia HS, for instance, 

the coach noted that teachers now collaborate on lesson planning and work more closely together 

during common planning time. The teachers also seem better able to manage their classrooms 

and some have made changes in lesson plan design and execution, especially in how lessons are 

organized. 

Schools are also using grant resources to provide other professional development activities, 

including teacher release time to attend trainings on new curricula, classroom management, 

effective teaching strategies, and using data to inform practice. Below are some examples. 

	 Some schools hired external providers to deliver staff training. For example, 

two schools—Lincoln HS and University City HS—received training from the 

Center for Secondary School Redesign (CSSR) on a variety of reform strategies, 

such as developing a strong ninth grade planning committee, structuring common 

planning time, developing a curriculum for the advisory periods, and designing 

project-based learning activities. 

	 Schools offer release time for teachers to attend training at the district and at 

conferences on topics such as conflict management and how to use new curricula, 

including the corrective reading and math curriculum. At Overbrook HS, a 

leadership team comprised of five teachers is participating in a four-year 

Distributed Leadership Initiative funded by the Annenberg Foundation, which is a 

collaboration between the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia School 

District. Through the initiative, members of the leadership team are receiving 

over 100 hours of professional development and support to create distributed 

leadership within the school. 

IV-12 
	 Teachers receive professional development from instructional coaches on 

new district programs and initiatives. Schools usually devote one to two days 

per week to additional professional development on specialized topics offered by 

instructional coaches, such as using and integrating new curricula and assessing 

student work. 

Remediating Poor Academic Achievement 

Another important goal of the MEES grant is to strengthen students’ basic skills in core subjects 

such as reading and math, so that they can be successful in high school. The grant is funding 

teachers and staff to provide academic remediation during the school day and after school. Three 

schools are using the grant to fund teachers to teach corrective reading and math during the 

school day (Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, University City HS). Four schools are using the grant 

to fund portions of afterschool programs focused on academic remediation (Berkshire JSHS, Du 

Bois HS, Overbrook HS, University City HS). These services are described below. 

Corrective Reading and Corrective Math 

As mentioned above, 12 teachers have been hired at Lincoln HS and 13 at University City HS to 

exclusively teach corrective reading and corrective math. At Germantown HS, two teachers who 

have been hired through the grant are each teaching at least one class of corrective reading and 

corrective math. 

Corrective reading and math was prescribed by the School District of Philadelphia at the 

beginning of SY 2009–2010 under the assumption that students need to master basic reading and 

math skills in order to be adequately prepared for high school. Students are tested at the 

beginning of the school year to identify their reading and math levels and are placed in 

appropriate classes based on their test scores. Students can “test out” of corrective reading and 

math if their scores suggest they are proficient. Exhibit IV-5 shows that a large number of 

students in the Philadelphia schools tested into the corrective reading and math program 

(enriched reading and math), which means that these students are required to take English and 

math through the corrective reading and math classes and the regular English and Algebra class. 

IV-13 
 

Exhibit IV-5: 

Students in Enriched Reading and Math Classes 

SY 2009–2010 

Number in Enriched Percent of Students in 

Reading and Math Total Enrollment Enriched Reading and Math 

Bartram HS 154 1292 11.9 

Berkshire JSHS 223 223 100.0 

Du Bois HS 97 649 14.9 

FitzSimons HS 46 286 16.1 

Germantown HS 51 1035 4.9 

Lincoln HS 951 1698 56.0 

Overbrook HS 351 1623 21.6 

University City HS 164 810 20.2 

West Philadelphia HS 76 845 9.0 

1 The percent of students in enriched reading and math is based on the entire school population. It is likely that the majority of 

students in Enriched Reading and Math are ninth and tenth graders. 

2 Berkshire JSHS offers Strategic Reading and Strategic Math, which may include double or triple doses of these subjects. The 

numbers for Strategic Reading and Math are 223 students in each subject, as reported in the MIS. 

3 Data for Du Bois HS is as of June 17, 2010. 

Note: DOL defines students enrolled in Enriched Reading and Math as those receiving double or triple doses of English and math. 

Other key findings related to Exhibit IV-5 are as follows: 

	 All of the students from Berkshire JSHS are enrolled in enriched reading 

and math. Many of these students are behind grade level in reading and math, 

and only about two-thirds of ninth grade students are promoted on time. Because 

of these challenges, the school is offering enriched reading and math as extra 

support to all of the students. 

	 More than half the total number of students at Lincoln HS (56 percent) are 

enrolled in enriched reading and math. This is perhaps why Lincoln HS has 

hired so many new teachers (12) to specifically teach corrective reading and math. 

	 Very few students at Germantown HS tested into corrective reading and 

math (5 percent). This is surprising, given that a large number of students at this 

school are repeating ninth graders who typically have low skills and are behind on 

their credits. 

Some of the schools in Philadelphia faced some difficulties implementing the corrective reading 

and math program. Teachers reported that the program was launched after students had already 

been assigned to other classes and, as a result, schools needed to develop new schedules for 

them. Further, students’ placement in corrective reading and math is based on a single, and 

rather short, placement exam and they are not given a “second” chance to re-take the test if they 

do not do well the first time. Many students reported that they did not take the test seriously 

IV-14 
enough and, as a result, a high percentage of them were placed into these remedial programs, 

even though their academic records did not show that such remediation was necessary. Lastly, 

many teachers noted that they do not like that the curriculum is so scripted, and they feel that it 

“dumbs down” content for students. One math teacher said that she refuses to “snap” at her 

students as suggested by the curriculum, indicating, “I wouldn’t treat my children that way, so I 

refuse to treat my students that way.” Moving forward, school leaders in Philadelphia are 

hopeful that the corrective reading and math program will help students gain the skills needed to 

be successful in high school. 

Afterschool Programs 

Academic remediation is also available through afterschool programs, some portions of which 

are funded by the grant. The following schools in particular are using a small amount of the 

grant to pay for some aspects of their afterschool programs that are focused on academic 

remediation. 

	 Berkshire JSHS. Students participate in a combination of academic remediation 

and credit retrieval during the extended school day that was made possible by the 

MEES grant. Classes during the extended school day are formally structured, 

using a curriculum that is customized to students’ learning needs. 

	 Du Bois HS. This school offers academic remediation and test-prep services 

through the High School Assessment (HSA) Academies that are held after school. 

These academies are designed to help students prepare for the state HSA test, 

which they must pass in order to graduate from high school. In addition, teachers 

offer individual tutoring and math support after school. 

	 Overbrook HS. The grant pays for an afterschool program called the 

“homework zone,” which is held in the library after school every day. As many 

as 30–40 students attend homework zone each day. Students sign in as they come 

into the library, and spend at least the first 15 minutes on homework. City Year 

volunteers (AmeriCorps) serve as tutors along with two teachers (who are paid to 

stay after school by the grant). After spending a minimum amount of time on 

homework, students engage in recreational activities. 

	 University City HS. The grant pays for APEX, an online credit recovery 

program that all failing ninth graders are required to attend after school, using 

computers in the Student Success Center (SSC). 

In addition, the SSCs at Philadelphia schools offer afterschool tutoring and homework assistance 

to students on a drop-in basis. Students often visit the SSC to use the computers to do their 

homework or use online tutoring programs. These examples suggest that the grant is giving 

schools the flexibility to design services in a way that is suitable for students—during the day as 

part of the regular classroom, or during afterschool hours. 

IV-15 
Facilitating Credit Retrieval 

Schools are also using grant funds to provide credit retrieval programs for students who need to 

make up credits to obtain their diplomas. There are several ways in which these programs are 

delivered—in Twilight School or in a school-within-a-school, during the regular school day, or 

during extended learning time (e.g., Saturday school, after school). Credit retrieval programs 

typically have small classes to allow students to work closely with teachers either individually or 

in small groups to complete the credits required to graduate; some of the classes that we 

observed had an average of 10 to 15 students. Instruction is offered in a variety of subjects, often 

with flexible pacing and schedules of instruction, adapting instructional methods and content to 

students’ skill levels and learning styles. 

Exhibit IV-6 shows that schools are reporting students who are enrolled in both credit retrieval 

and Twilight Schools in SY 2009–2010, even though the MEES grant is not directly funding 

these programs at all schools. Note that students enrolled in credit retrieval are included in the 

overall enrollment for the school, while those enrolled in Twilight Schools are not. 

Exhibit IV-6: 

Students Enrolled in Credit Retrieval and Twilight Schools 

SY 2009–2010 

Credit Retrieval Twilight School 

Number of 

Students 

Percent of Total 

Enrollment 

Number of 

Students 

Bartram HS 125 9.7 329 

Berkshire JSHS1 119 53.4 0 

Du Bois HS2 0 0 19 

FitzSimons HS3 33 11.5 653 

Germantown HS 182 17.6 237 

Lincoln HS 260 15.3 n/a 

Overbrook HS 174 10.7 311 

University City HS 132 16.3 0 

West Philadelphia HS 0 0 76 

1 Berkshire JSHS has rolling enrollment. The data for Berkshire JSHS is from the fourth quarter MIS data 

and includes data through June 23, 2010. 

2 Data for Du Bois HS is as of June 17, 2010. 

3 FitzSimons HS does not have a Twilight School, even though the MIS is reporting that students are 

enrolled in this school. 

Note: Students enrolled in twilight school programs are not counted towards the schools’ overall 

enrollment, while students enrolled in credit retrieval are. 

IV-16 
 

 

 

Some of the key findings related to credit retrieval and Exhibit IV-6 are as follows: 

	 The schools with the largest proportion of students receiving credit retrieval 

services are Berkshire JSHS, Germantown HS, University HS, and Lincoln 

HS. At Berkshire JSHS, over fifty percent of its students receive credit retrieval 

services. Of the traditional high schools, the schools with the largest percentage 

of repeating ninth graders also have the high numbers of students enrolled in 

credit retrieval. The percentage of repeating ninth grade students at these schools 

are as follows: Germantown HS (28 percent), Lincoln HS (16 percent), and 

University City HS (7.3 percent). 

	 Du Bois HS reports a low number of students enrolled in the credit retrieval 

program, Transitional Evening School (TES). The low enrollment numbers 

have to do with students transferring in and out of TES school as they complete 

their credits and return to the regular school.
 

Below is a summary of the various credit retrieval options that are available to students. These 

include (1) classes that are offered during the day as part of the OASIS program, (2) classes 

during Saturday School, (3) classes during an extended school day or after school, and (4) 

classes at the Twilight Schools. 

OASIS Program 

The OASIS program is a school-within-a-school credit retrieval program for overage, undercredit students designed to help students make up credits at an accelerated pace. This program is 

offered during the school day at three grantee schools and is not funded by the grant.17 Even 

though this program is not funded by the grant, it represents a significant reform effort at these 

three schools, both in terms of scale and influence. Over 10 percent of the students at 

FitzSimons HS, Overbrook HS, and University City HS are enrolled in OASIS, suggesting that 

there is a high need for the program. The number of staff members hired for the program is also 

significant. At Overbrook HS, for example, there is a Site Manager, a Site Coordinator, and 

three part-time teachers (Spanish, Public Speaking, and Media Arts). There are also two fulltime teachers from the Center for Literacy who provide reading instruction and math enrichment 

activities. 

The program brings together staffing from a number of organizations such as the Philadelphia 

Youth Network, Communities in Schools (CIS), Center for Literacy, and Education Works to 

deliver a variety of services, such as academic remediation and counseling. Coordination across 

multiple agencies can be challenging at times because staff are not always clear on the roles and 

17 These schools include FitzSimons HS, Overbrook HS, and University City HS. 

IV-17 
responsibilities of all the partners. University City HS, for instance, has five organizations that 

work together to deliver a variety of services in the program. As the program continues to roll 

out in SY 2010–2011, the program staff members are meeting regularly to ensure that they are 

clear about their roles and responsibilities. 

Saturday School 

Another strategy that schools are using to offer credit recovery classes is Saturday School. The 

grant is contributing to portions of Saturday School at four schools—Bartram HS, Germantown 

HS, Lincoln HS, and Overbrook HS. The primary focus of Saturday School is credit recovery, 

but schools also offer test-prep services to enhance students’ test-taking abilities on the PSSA, 

Pennsylvania’s state test. Below we describe a selected sample of Saturday School models. 

	 Bartram HS. Saturday School at Bartram HS offers credit retrieval classes from
 

9pm to 12pm. The classes were available from December 2009 to April 2010. 

The grant is paying for the use of the facility for Saturday School, which 

according to the budget costs about $22,000 per year. 

	 Germantown HS. Saturday School at Germantown HS occurred from February 

2010 to May 2010, and offered academic remediation to struggling ninth graders, 

PSSA exam support for eleventh graders, and mentorship and enrichment 

activities. The school contracted with Kaplan for three teachers who taught 

Saturday School classes from 8:30 to 12:00. The Boys and Girls club, in 

partnership with Germantown HS teachers, provided mentorship and enrichment 

activities in the afternoon. As of the spring 2010, up to 117 students attended 

Saturday School. 

In addition to Saturday School, credit retrieval classes are offered after school. For example, all 

of the students at Berkshire JSHS are enrolled in credit retrieval classes as part of the extended 

school day that is funded by the grant. Here, students work independently on the computers 

while the teacher provides guidance as needed. 

Twilight School 

The Twilight School is an alternative after-hours program that is nested within the regular 

comprehensive high school as a “school-within-a-school” for students who have severe and 

persistent behavioral and attendance problems that inhibit their ability to be successful in a 

typical classroom. Two schools—Du Bois HS and West Philadelphia HS—are using the grant to 

pay for teachers and staff at their Twilight Schools, called Transitional Evening School (TES) at 

Du Bois HS and Pathways to Graduation (PTG) at West Philadelphia HS. Classes at Twilight 

Schools are offered in the specific courses of study that students failed, such as math, English, 

IV-18 
 

 

 

health, science, and Spanish. Below are examples of Twilight Schools at Du Bois HS and West 

Philadelphia HS. 

	 Transitional Evening School (TES) provides students with a small class setting, 

individualized instruction, one-on-one counseling, and weekly group counseling 

on a variety of topics. Students who attend TES usually had poor attendance 

records in the regular school, are often from unstable families, and tend to work 

better in small groups. Once students catch up on their credits, they can transition 

to the regular day school. TES is offered during the school year and students have 

the option of continuing to take classes in the summer. TES is fully funded by the 

grant, which pays for all of the staffing, including the TES administrator, a 

counselor, four teachers, and an administrative aide. Site visit data show that 29 

students were enrolled as of spring 2010.18 

	 Pathways to Graduation (PTG) at West Philadelphia HS is a credit retrieval 

program available after hours between 3pm and 6pm. It is also referred to as 

“night school” for students who are overage for their grades, under-credit, or who 

have dropped out and are returning to school to earn credits towards graduation. 

Students are diverse in terms of age and grade level, ranging from 16 to 20 years 

of age and ninth to twelfth grade. Students transition back to the regular day 

school once they are caught up on their credits. The average student stays about 5 

months in PTG. The grant is funding the teachers in the program. There are 

about three classes per day lasting 47 minutes each.
 

In sum, schools recognize that the traditional school structure and schedule do not meet the needs 

of all of their students and have developed credit recovery programs to re-engage them. The 

students for whom Twilight Schools are designed are those who have poor attendance, need to 

work during the day, or have dropped out and seek to gain their diplomas. Schools are using a 

variety of strategies to support these students, through online curricula, differentiated instruction, 

and flexible scheduling. 

Reconstituting Schools as Academies 

The majority of schools are being restructured into distinct academies: the Ninth Grade Academy 

for ninth graders and the career academies for tenth to twelfth graders. The academy structure 

creates self-contained small schools and learning communities, which are intended to improve 

the relationships among students and teachers as well as create conditions for more effective 

teaching and learning. 

18 The MIS data as of June 17, 2010 show that 19 students enrolled in TES. 

IV-19 
 

 

Some of the academies pre-date the MEES grant, but the grant expanded the goals and objectives 

that the academies strive to achieve: using career-related themes to increase the coherence of the 

high school curriculum; providing internships and other forms of workplace experience to 

connect classroom learning to the world beyond school; and preparing students for careers that 

include postsecondary education. While the MEES grant is not directly funding the academies, it 

is indirectly supporting them by funding some teachers and coaches who work in the academies 

and by funding field trips and other enrichment activities. 

Ninth Grade Success Academies 

Six out of the nine schools are implementing the Ninth Grade Success Academy model (Ninth 

Grade Academy).19 A Ninth Grade Academy is a self-contained school-within-a-school, 

organized around interdisciplinary teacher teams who share the same students and have common 

daily planning time. The Ninth Grade Academies at the grantee schools serve primarily firsttime ninth graders. Repeating ninth graders enroll in other programs such as Twilight School or 

OASIS. Exhibit IV-7 shows that enrollment in the Ninth Grade Academy varies from about 100 

at Du Bois HS to 521 students at Lincoln HS as of the fall 2009. 

Exhibit IV-7: 

Enrollment in Ninth Grade Academy
 

Fall 2009 

Enrollment in Ninth Grade Academy1 

Bartram HS 327 

Du Bois HS 84 

Germantown HS2 0 

Lincoln HS 521 

Overbrook HS 342 

University City HS 102 

West Philadelphia HS 224 

1

 Germantown HS did not implement the Ninth Grade Academy in SY 2009-2010, but plans to 

do so in SY 2010-2011. 

Note: Data are drawn from the New School Year Report to reflect enrollment at the beginning of 

the 2009–2010 school year. 

19	 The schools implementing the Ninth Grade Success Academies are Bartram HS, Du Bois HS, Lincoln HS, 

Overbrook HS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS. Germantown HS plans to implement the Ninth 

Grade Success Academy in SY 2010–2011. 

IV-20 
Because the ninth grade is a pivotal year and can determine a student’s ultimate success in high 

school, schools are devoting the bulk of their educational grant resources to the Ninth Grade 

Success Academies so that students receive early interventions and intensive support. Schools 

have staffed up the Ninth Grade Academies with extra teachers to reduce class size, and they 

have hired social workers to work with the most at-risk students. 

A Ninth Grade Academy generally has a separate management team to ensure its smooth 

operation, including a Ninth Grade Academy Principal and/or a Ninth Grade Academy 

Coordinator. The Academy Principal at the Philadelphia schools also serves as the Turnaround 

Assistant Principal (TAP), who is responsible for coordinating key activities in the academy, 

ensuring that the materials are in place, overseeing the teachers and coaches, and coordinating 

with the school principal and other core staff in the school. Some schools in Philadelphia have 

both the Academy Principal and an Academy Coordinator (or Dean) who coordinate common 

planning time and support teachers as needed. 

The two schools that are implementing the Talent Development model as part of the Ninth Grade 

Academy (Du Bois HS and West Philadelphia HS) have additional support from a program 

implementation team made up of organizational facilitators and additional instructional coaches. 

These additional staff members support the Academy Principal in implementing the reforms 

associated with the model, such as teaching in a block schedule, establishing common planning 

times, and using data to guide instruction. 

A core feature of a Ninth Grade Success Academy is that it is a small learning community. To 

achieve the desired size, schools arrange for ninth graders to be housed on a separate floor or 

“wing” of the school building, with all of the classes located within this designated area. Lincoln 

HS has established a separate entrance for ninth graders so that they are always in the same area. 

Teachers noted that having students together in a smaller space (1) helps create a more “familylike” setting, (2) ensures that the distance students must travel from class to class is short, 

making it harder for them to “go missing,” and (3) fosters strong relationships between students 

and teachers. To promote a strong identity for the Ninth Grade Academy, several schools 

require students to wear shirts of the same color so that they can easily be identified. As 

discussed above, the grant is helping to reduce class size significantly in the ninth grade. Most 

of the classes in the Ninth Grade Academies have no more than 20–25 students. 

Students had mixed reactions about being in classes with the same group of students all day long. 

One student from West Philadelphia HS said he likes having the same group of students at his 

school because, as he said, “We all know how to say it. We all know what we’re about.” 

However, other students in a focus group did not like the structure of the Ninth Grade Academy, 

IV-21 
because they wanted to meet other students. Teachers, on the other hand, like having ninth 

graders in one place so that they can get to know them and monitor their whereabouts. 

The academic program of the Ninth Grade Academy is designed to enhance academic rigor and 

provide opportunities for students to review basic skills in reading and math. The majority of 

schools with Ninth Grade Academies are following a somewhat standard curriculum that is 

available through their respective school districts. However, some novel elements were 

implemented. For example, two schools that are implementing the Talent Development High 

School Model—Du Bois HS and West Philadelphia HS—offer double time in mathematics and 

English for students who have weak skills in these areas and, in the first semester, offer a 

Freshmen Seminar—a course focused on improving study and time management skills. Du Bois 

HS is offering Strategic Reading and Strategic Math, which are preparatory, “catch-up” classes 

that prepare students for ninth grade Algebra and English. 

Overall, schools are making progress in implementing the core structures for the Ninth Grade 

Academy by designating spaces for students and hiring teachers to reduce class size. However, 

there is still work to be done to strengthen many of the academies. At one school, the Ninth 

Grade Academy was implemented fairly quickly and, as a result, some gaps remain. At this 

school, school leaders hope to strengthen common planning time for ninth grade teachers, to 

isolate the ninth grade academy by creating a ninth-grade-only lunch period, and to create more 

opportunities for cross-curricular, project-based learning. 

Career Academies 

Six schools are implementing career academies for students in grades 10 through 12 as part of 

their school reform process. The career academies are a type of school-within-a-school that 

provides a college-preparatory curriculum with a career-related theme and work-based learning 

experiences supported by industry partners. Similar to the Ninth Grade Academies, career 

academies are designed as small learning communities within large schools so that students feel 

less alienated, more engaged, and more likely to pass their courses and accumulate credits 

toward graduation. Students in the academies also share the same teachers, and a group of 

teachers from academic and technical disciplines are scheduled to have only or mostly academy 

students in their classes. These teachers also meet with each other during common planning time 

and share in decision-making related to administrative policies, curriculum content, and 

instruction. The academies usually have a designated Academy Coordinator who assumes lead 

responsibility for administrative tasks and usually serves as a liaison to the school principal and 

employer partners. 

IV-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each career academy has a specific career theme, which, as shown in Exhibit IV-8, can be 

related to health care, business and finance, communications media, technology, or several other 

fields. In theory, academic courses that meet high school graduation and college entrance 

requirements are linked with technical courses that focus on the academy’s field of work. 

Schools with well-developed career academies also include career exploration and employability 

skill development through career-technical courses or work-based learning opportunities, which 

are intended to tie classroom activities to internships with local employer partners. 

Exhibit IV-8: 

Themes for Career Academies Bartram HS Berkshire JSHS Germantown HSLincoln HS

Overbrook HS University City HSWestPhiladelphiaHS 

Business Technology     

Communications 

Engineering 

Health     

Horticulture  

Law 

Performing Arts  

Science 

Urban Leadership (film industry, 

urban studies, urban education) 

 

Finance 

Carpentry, landscaping, 

electrical, building maintenance 



Note: The MIS data shows that FitzSimons HS enrolled students in career academies during the 2009-2010 

school year. However, at the time of the fourth site visit (summer 2010), the school did not implement 

traditional career academies, yet was grouping students by grade levels (i.e., ninth through tenth and 

through twelfth), which the school classified as career academies. Nevertheless, FitzSimons HS has plans 

to implement traditional career academies in the 2010-2011 school year, focusing on Construction 

Technology, Entrepreneurship and Urban Education. 

Automotive 

Several schools have developed partnerships with employers and postsecondary educational 

institutions as part of their academy structures. The Health Academy at Bartram HS, for 

example, has partnered with Drexel University, a local university that is providing a host of inkind services to the academy. For instance, Drexel University is providing access to an onsite 

IV-23 
simulation lab for students to perform actual lab tests and practice their lab skills while working 

with nurses and other health professionals. Drexel University also allows students to attend 

career and post-secondary education workshops to learn about post-secondary options and 

careers in the health field. In addition, well-developed career academies, such as the Auto 

Academy at West Philadelphia HS and the Health Academy at Bartram HS, have advisory 

groups that include representatives from the local employer community and from local colleges 

or universities. Advisory group members give advice on curriculum, appear as guest speakers in 

classes, host field trips, and provide financial or in-kind support. 

While some schools appear to be implementing practices with good promise for advancing the 

goals of the career academies, the overall quality of the career academies varies widely. Several 

schools in Philadelphia are struggling to embrace the career academy model fully because of 

scheduling constraints. Because students are required to take heavy doses of basic skills, they do 

not have time in their schedules to complete elective courses in their respective career 

academies. For instance, approximately 400 students are enrolled in a health-care-themed career 

academy at a Philadelphia high school, but nearly 300 of the students will not take a health 

elective while in the academy in SY 2009–2010 because they do not have room in their 

schedules. 

Although the MEES grant is not directly funding the development of the career academies, some 

grant funds are being used to pay for field trips focused on career exploration and job shadowing 

opportunities. At University City HS, the grant is paying for students in the Law Academy to go 

to City Hall to meet lawyers and watch a trial. Students in the Engineering Academy went to 

Philly Stadium to watch how a stadium is built. In SY 2010–2011, staff at Overbrook HS plan to 

take students to go on job shadows or field trips that are associated with their academies. Grant 

funds are also used towards professional development for academy teachers and some supplies 

for the academies, such as laptop computers, journals and calculators, though these expenses 

represent a small contribution to the academies. 

The schools are hoping to strengthen the career academies in SY 2010–2011 in several ways. At 

Germantown HS, there are plans in the grant budget to hire an organization called Teachers in 

the Workplace, which places academy teachers in relevant work settings in the summer so that 

they can integrate practical, work-based learning activities into their classrooms. Lincoln HS 

plans to develop additional internships for the career academies in order to strengthen the 

connection between work and learning. With the support of the Philadelphia Youth Network and 

the staff at the SSC, academy teachers plan to connect with employers to solicit their input on 

creating an applied curriculum. 

IV-24 
 

 

 

 

Providing Instructional and Curricular Supports 

Schools are using grant funds to fund a number of curricular and instructional supports to aid the 

implementation of key reforms. These supports include the following: 

	 Supplemental curricula. All of the schools are using grant funds to purchase 

supplemental curricula to enhance student learning. These include online 

curricula and the Talent Development High School curriculum. Schools invested 

in these supplemental curricula to augment their core curricula and make it 

possible to tailor the pacing and content of instruction to students’ skill levels. 

The amount of resources devoted to supplemental curricula ranges from $100,000 

at Bartram HS to about $300,000 at FitzSimons HS. The curricula include SAT 

prep materials, Achieve 3000, Apangea for math, Study Island, APEX online 

curriculum, and others. Achieve 3000 exemplifies many of these curriculum 

packages; it is a program that tailors content to the individual reading level of the 

student, thus providing a medium through which students who are at different 

reading levels can read and discuss similar content. 

	 Technology/Equipment. Additional grant resources are being spent on 

technology and equipment, though there are some restrictions on the types of 

expenditures that are allowed under this line item. School leaders noted that the 

grant does not allow for most equipment expenses, such as new equipment that is 

needed for the career academies, but other equipment purchases, such as for 

computers, are allowed. At Germantown HS, for example, the budget is reserving 

about $100,000 for student computers and printers. Additionally, the grant was 

used to purchase multimedia equipment and software to enrich the Digital 

Portfolio program at Germantown HS.20 

	 Student incentives/rewards. Schools feel that providing incentives and rewards 

is an important way of engaging students in classes and during enrichment 

activities. Incentives include food for students at school-wide events and student 

gift cards. Schools are reserving between $50,000 and about $100,000 for this 

line item.
 

	 Enrichment activities. Respondents reported that the grant is providing a 

number of valuable enrichment activities to supplement the learning that is taking 

place in the classrooms. Some of the enrichment activities that the grant supports 

include field trips to cultural events, trips for career exploration and job 

shadowing, and school-wide assemblies. For example, University City HS 

contracted with the Academy of Natural Sciences to provide after-school, handson science enrichment one day a week. As of the spring 2010, the TAP estimates 

that the school has taken about 40 trips total (with about 50 students per trip). 

These trips are designed as career exploration activities, so that the students in the 

career academies can connect their class work to the world of work. 

20 All students at Germantown HS produce comprehensive digital portfolios of their work over their high school 

careers. 

IV-25 
 

School leaders noted that the instructional and curricular supports described above are essential 

for the successful implementation of the reforms. Teachers reported that the supplemental online 

curricula such as APEX and Achieve 3000 are especially useful for tailoring instruction to 

students who require extra help. Offering students incentives is also viewed by school staff as a 

valuable tool for motivating students to succeed. 

Offering Summer Programs 

Schools offer summer programs—through summer bridge and traditional summer school—to 

help students make a smooth and successful transition to high school. Summer programs are 

designed to help students improve academic skills, catch up on academic credits, and participate 

in enrichment activities. 

Summer Programs in 2010 

The summer programs changed significantly at the Philadelphia schools between 2009 and 2010. 

Most notably, the programs lasted longer and there was a stronger emphasis on academic 

services. In addition, the SDP implemented the Summer Learning and More (SLAM) initiative 

to provide skills development in core subject areas and enrichment opportunities for all eighth 

grade students/rising ninth graders attending Empowerment Schools, Renaissance Schools, and 

non-high-need schools. As a result of the SLAM initiative, there were a number of core changes 

to the summer bridge program in Philadelphia in 2010, including the following: 

	 The summer bridge programs were extended to six weeks, an increase from five 

weeks in 2009. 

	 The MEES grant paid for seven days of the summer bridge program in 

Philadelphia, including supplies and field trips, while the district paid for the rest. 

In 2009, the MEES grant paid for the bulk of the summer bridge program. 

	 SDP played a larger and more significant role in the design of the summer bridge 

program. The district mandated that students spend two hours on reading and two 

hours on math per day, that schools use a standardized curriculum for failing 

eighth graders and rising ninth graders, that field trips can occur only during the 

last week of the program, and that students attend a life skills class. 

	 As a result of the increased time spent in academic classes, there was less time 

available for enrichment activities. Schools still had latitude to structure the 

content and schedule of these activities, but their duration and scale decreased 

somewhat in 2010. 

	 The district imposed an attendance policy for summer bridge, which states that 

students who miss two days of summer bridge are in danger of failing the 

program. However, as the summer progressed, the district was lenient about this 

IV-26 
policy because of unusual circumstances that affected attendance, such as the heat 

wave. 

The summer program at Du Bois HS was designed for ninth grade students who failed English 1 

and Algebra 1 and needed to attend summer school to retrieve credits in order to be promoted to 

the tenth grade. Most of the elements of the 2009 summer program remained in 2010. However, 

the summer school lasted six weeks, an increase from four weeks in 2009. The duration of class 

was also extended (from one and a half hours in 2009 to three hours in 2010). The district 

mandated the increase in summer school hours in an effort to deter students from “slacking off” 

during the normal school year. The grant covers the cost of summer school, which is normally 

$150 per student. The Transition Evening School (TES) also runs during the summer, not as a 

“summer school,” but as part of the regular programming. 

Berkshire JSHS implemented a 30-day summer program that included a combination of 

academic and recreational activities. In the morning, students took academic classes such as 

science, English, math, and social studies, and in the afternoon, students participated in 

recreational activities at the lake or pool, played intramural sports, and participated in Adventure 

Based Counseling (ABC). ABC, which is also offered during the school year, uses groupcounseling techniques to develop problem-solving skills and promote positive relationships 

among students. 

Features of 2010 Summer Programs 

Below we describe some of the key features of the summer programs in 2010, including how 

students were recruited, what students were enrolled, and what academic programs and 

enrichment activities were offered. 

Recruitment and Enrollment 

The schools used a variety of tactics to reach students, including parent outreach, assemblies at 

feeder middle schools, and targeted recruitment to students who were identified as at risk of 

failure based on their eighth grade attendance and grades. Since SDP required that failing eighth 

graders attend summer bridge, one school “force-registered” about 224 failing eighth grade 

students into summer bridge, but many of them did not show up because they did not know they 

needed to attend. As a result, many students officially registered for the program late and, in 

some cases, enrollment occurred well into the second week of the program. 

Exhibit IV-9 highlights summer bridge enrollment for 2009 and 2010 (as of July).The types of 

students who attended summer bridge generally reflected the population that the districts hoped 

to reach, including failing eighth graders and, in Philadelphia, students who were planning to 

IV-27 
attend the designated high-need schools (e.g. Empowerment Schools). This is made clear in 

Exhibit IV-10, which shows that in the Philadelphia summer programs the number of failing 

eighth graders is far greater than the number of “rising” ninth graders. In fact, at four schools— 

Germantown HS, Lincoln HS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS—nearly threefourths of enrolled students are failing eighth graders. 

Exhibit IV-9: 

Summer Bridge Enrollment 

2009, 2010 

IV-28 
Exhibit IV-10: 

2010 Summer Bridge Student Characteristics 

Academic Programs 

In Philadelphia, academic programs differed for the two basic categories of students: failing 

eighth graders and rising ninth graders. Failing eighth graders worked on basic reading and 

math, using the mandated Voyager curriculum, a standardized curriculum for credit-deficient 

students. Rising ninth graders worked on academic enrichment activities using the Step-Up to 

Reading and Writing curriculum. For math, rising ninth graders took pre-Algebra. As 

mentioned above, all students were required to spend two hours per day in reading and math for 

a total of four hours of academic classes per day, regardless of their academic skill level. This 

schedule represents the biggest change to the summer bridge program in Philadelphia. Teachers 

universally felt that four hours a day in reading and math over the summer was excessive and 

they did not believe that students would be engaged or excited about attending high school. One 

teacher said: 

It’s a lot to ask of the students to sit through two hours of reading and two 

hours of math every day. Two hours is half an hour past too long. They 

start to lose effect by trying to do too much. 

The schools tried to alternate the academic and enrichment activities so that students had a break 

in their schedules from the academic classes. One school, for example, assigned a two-hour slot 

for reading in the morning and another two-hour slot for math in the afternoon. In between the 

IV-29 
academic classes was an enrichment class such as sports, art, or drama. Several other schools, 

however, concentrated the academic classes in the morning for four hours straight, and provided 

some enrichment activities in the afternoon. 

Enrichment Activities 

The summer bridge program is designed to include a number of enrichment activities, but 

enrichment activities at SDP schools were scaled back somewhat in 2010 because SDP increased 

the amount of time students needed to spend in academic classes. Time spent on enrichment 

activities declined from two to three hours a day in 2009 to 30 minutes to one hour per day in 

2010. Summer school students at Du Bois HS did not generally receive enrichment services 

2009 or 2010. 

The type of enrichment activities offered were similar to those available in 2009 and included 

visual arts, performing arts, music, sports, and culinary arts. In addition to these activities, 

students participated in a number of field trips, though the structure of these trips changed 

drastically in 2010. The SDP mandated that summer bridge field trips could only occur during 

the last week of the program. This way, according to district leaders, students could concentrate 

on their academic classes without the interruptions of field trips. School leaders and teachers 

voiced some concerns about the change in the field trip schedule because they felt that, when 

offered weekly, the field trips served as strong incentives for students—something that students 

could look forward to at the end of the week. 

While the field trip schedule was somewhat uniform, the structure of other enrichment activities 

varied considerably by school. Similar to the structure in 2009, students were able to choose 

their enrichment activities, and some schools provided a diverse range of activities each week. 

Schools also differed on when the enrichment activities were offered—some were offered in the 

morning in between academic classes, while others were offered entirely in the afternoon. 

Students and staff felt that the enrichment activities provided opportunities for strong social 

support, which they believed was essential to helping students transition into a new school 

environment. As they continue to reflect on the lessons learned from summer bridge programs, 

schools will need to strike a delicate balance between the need for sufficient time in academic 

classes and the need for enrichment activities that expose students to experiences outside of the 

normal classroom environment. 

Employment Services 

All the schools offered some form of employment service as part of summer bridge, though these 

services were fairly “light touch” in nature. At Du Bois HS, students who were part of the 

IV-30 
 

 

Futures program21 and enrolled in summer school received career readiness training from a local 

CBO. At Berkshire JSHS, employment services were available through the vocational academy, 

which offered student internships and career readiness training—e.g., resume writing, 

interviewing techniques, job search strategies, etc. The Philadelphia schools emphasized career 

readiness training during summer bridge. For example, the students were learning how to be on 

time for a job and how to budget their paychecks. Additionally, students learned about career 

and industry trends, focusing specifically on “where jobs will be going in the years to come.” 

Some schools leveraged the expertise of the SSC to provide employment services. At 

Germantown HS, SSC staff designed a Career Week, when the job specialist brought in a 

number of guest speakers to discuss strategies for finding work and selecting career options. 

One speaker focused on guidelines for effective interviewing, another focused on strategies for 

professional networking, while still another focused on developing career goals and the 

connection between education and careers. 

Schools also provided workshops on college planning and other postsecondary options through 

the SSC. These activities included classes focused on how to succeed in high school and how to 

apply and get into college. Schools relied on role-playing and other group activities to engage 

students. At one school, for example, students acted as a college admission committee, and were 

given bios, grades, and test scores from applicants. Committee members were told to choose two 

applicants out of five and to justify their choices. 

Transition Class/Life Skills Training 

Life skills training was offered at the Philadelphia schools for the first time in the summer of 

2010, through the district-mandated Transition Class. This class was designed to prepare 

students for high school and included topics such as “interest exploration” to help students 

identify their career interests, set career goals, and learn how to get accepted to college. Students 

also took a vocational skills inventory to identify their career interests. The transition class 

covered other broad topics related to high school readiness such as developing a learning plan for 

school, which helped students identify habits that may interfere with their success. 

While the curriculum for the Transition Class was the same across the Philadelphia schools, the 

way in which the class was delivered varied by school. Staff from the SSC played a strong role 

21 The Futures program is a dropout prevention program available at many high schools in Baltimore. As part of 

the program, students are paired with an “advocate” who serves as a case manager or counselor, monitoring 

students’ academic progress and attendance, and coordinating with teacher and parents to make sure students 

stay on track. 

IV-31 
in delivering this class at a number of schools. Other schools relied on both teachers and SSC 

staff to lead the class. Regardless of the method of delivery, the Transition Class enabled 

schools to provide a formal class focused on the skills needed to be successful in high school. 

Incentives 

Schools used a variety of incentives to keep students’ attention and interest over the summer. 

Incentives included bus tokens and awards for good attendance, such as special lunches or gift 

cards. Students at Bartram HS received an additional financial incentive, getting paid $29 per 

day, or $7.25 per hour (for four hours a day) to attend summer bridge. This stipend was made 

possible through a grant from the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition (GPUAC), which 

is providing funding for 75 service-learning slots. According to teachers, the stipend made a big 

difference in their enrollment numbers. As one teacher said, “Without that [stipends], students 

don’t want to come to summer school at all.” 

Summer Program Challenges 

Schools faced some difficult challenges implementing the summer programs in 2010: 

	 The longer summer programs meant that schools needed to “sell” the 

summer programs more intentionally than in the past. Most students do not 

want to attend a summer program for six weeks, so schools had to devise ways of 

making the programs sound attractive. Unfortunately, despite their efforts, many 

schools did not meet their enrollment goals. 

	 Many of the Philadelphia schools struggled to recruit teachers who were 

interested in working for six weeks over the summer. Some schools resorted 

to recruiting teachers from other schools to work in summer programs. This was 

logistically challenging, as some of the teachers did not know about the culture or 

staffing of the school, or about other procedures related to summer bridge. 

	 A number of students in Philadelphia who were attending summer bridge 

were not planning to enroll at the same school in the fall. This occurred 

because the district encouraged students to attend the summer program closest to 

their homes. As a result, teachers did not have information about students’ grades 

prior to attending summer bridge. 

	 SDP notified the schools of the shift in the summer program schedule late in 

the school year, after the teachers had already planned for the program. 

This meant that teachers needed to redesign their activities and schedules to 

ensure that students were receiving four hours of academic services plus 

enrichment activities. They also had to shift field trips into the last week of the 

summer bridge program. Since the field trips were planned well in advance, it 

was difficult to reschedule some of them. 

	 Some schools in Philadelphia did not receive their instructional materials in 

time for summer bridge. In Philadelphia, the speed with which the changes 

IV-32 
occurred for the summer bridge program meant that schools needed to get the 

instructional materials in a timely manner. Unfortunately, several schools in 

Philadelphia did not receive their instructional materials until well into the second 

week of the program. One teacher expressed some frustration about this: 

The biggest challenges were the materials not being here on time. 

I didn’t feel such a problem with the district imposing structure, 

but if you are going to impose a structure, you have to come up 

with the materials. 

	 Some schools in Philadelphia were unable to take full advantage of the ability 

of the SSC to provide employment services over the summer. This challenge 

was due partly to the full schedule that the district already imposed on the 

students, leaving limited time for additional enrichment activities such as career 

exploration. 

Successful Strategies 

Despite the difficulties that schools faced implementing the summer programs, school leaders 

identified a number of noteworthy practices. For example, the class size was fairly small, with 

an average of about 15–20 students in each class. This allowed teachers to work individually 

with students and for teachers to get to know students before the start of the school year. 

Perhaps as a result of the small class size, the school climate during summer programs was fairly 

calm, with few disruptions or student conflicts. Some schools, such as Bartram HS, successfully 

incorporated project-based learning into their programs, drawing on the specific themes for the 

summer program, such as healthy lifestyles, alternative energy, and gardening. At the end of the 

program, students in each group were expected to create projects based on these themes. 

Challenges and Lessons Learned 

This chapter summarized the range of educational reforms and interventions that have been 

instituted in the grantee schools, focusing on the core programs funded by the MEES grant. The 

schools are devoting large portions of their grant funds to educational strategies—on average, 

about 39 percent of their total budgets. These strategies are aimed at the whole school and at 

specific target groups of at-risk students, such as repeating ninth graders and students from other 

grades who are overage and/or credit-deficient. Schools are making significant progress 

implementing the key reforms that they planned to implement, but they are also facing some 

challenges: 

	 Teachers have not always embraced grant funded activities. There was some
 

resistance among teachers who felt that there were too many reforms to 

implement and not sufficient guidance on implementing them. Some teachers at 

the Philadelphia schools, for example, resisted the common planning time 

IV-33 
 

 

required by the district because they did not receive clear guidance on how to use 

this time. 

 The Renaissance Schools initiative changed the context for grant implementation. 

University City HS was slated to become a Renaissance School, which would transfer the 

operation of the school from the district to a community-based organization. This change 

created a somewhat difficult environment for grant implementation. Because teachers 

did not know if they would be working at University City HS the next year, it was 

difficult to recruit them to work in grant-funded programs such as mentoring. 

	 Sustaining newly-developed programs and services will be difficult in the 

face of district-wide budget cuts. Schools are concerned about their ability to 

sustain some of the grant-funded activities due to budget cuts at the district level. 

Berkshire JSHS, for example, will not be able to continue to provide extended 

learning time, which cost approximately $208,205 to implement in SY 2009– 

2010. Other resource-intensive programs such as the Transitional Evening School 

at Du Bois HS will also be difficult to sustain beyond the life of the grant. 

The implementation experience has also taught administrators at the schools and districts a 

number of lessons, some of which they plan to apply during the remaining years of the grant: 

	 Teachers require sufficient training and support on how to implement grantfunded and district-wide reforms. With so many reform efforts underway, such 

as corrective reading and math at the Philadelphia schools, co-teaching models at 

Overbrook HS, and common planning time, teachers require adequate 

professional development and guidance so that they can participate effectively in 

the creation of positive change. 

	 It is necessary to develop better, more methodical procedures for assigning 

students to career academies. Because many schools have not developed 

procedures for assigning students to specific career academies, some students are 

enrolled in academies haphazardly because they are not clear about their career 

paths. School administrators are now quite mindful of the need to develop 

procedures that help students identify their career goals so that they can be 

enrolled in the appropriate career academies. 

Summary of Findings 

As discussed throughout this chapter, schools made strong headway in implementing the key 

reforms they planned with support from the MEES grant. While grant funds are supporting 

specific areas within the broad category of educational reforms and interventions—such as hiring 

teachers to teach specific classes, purchasing specialized curricula, and paying for student 

incentives and field trips—there are many ways in which the grant is influencing the schools as 

wholes and the reform processes that many of them are currently undertaking. By hiring a large 

number of teachers, the grant is contributing to smaller class sizes and a lower student-to-teacher 

IV-34 
ratio which, according to many studies, can improve overall instructional practices and the 

school climate. The grant is also contributing indirectly to the development of small learning 

communities through the academy structure. Many schools are devoting a large percentage of 

grant funds to the Ninth Grade Success Academies, by hiring both a large number of ninth grade 

teachers and numerous instructional coaches to work specifically with the ninth grade teachers. 

By working to improve the success of ninth graders, schools are investing in early intervention 

strategies that can ultimately affect the schools’ overall dropout rate. The grant is also affecting 

the most at-risk students by supporting the creation of Twilight Schools and academic 

remediation programs for students who have failed core classes and need to get back on track in 

order to graduate. Moving forward, schools are continuing to refine and reflect on their practices 

in the hope that they can influence student achievement over time. 

IV-35 

V. MENTORING AND SCHOOL CLIMATE STRATEGIES 

Mentoring programs and school climate interventions are core components of the MEES grant’s 

effort to reduce violence in schools and improve the school environment. These programs and 

interventions aim to improve attendance, behavior, academic achievement, and engagement for 

the entire student body and particularly for members of specific target groups who may be atrisk, such as entering and repeating ninth graders. Since mentoring programs and school climate 

interventions are separate strategies, each is discussed in a different core section in this chapter. 

Each section first provides a broad overview, and then discusses in depth each intervention’s key 

components, including program administration, technical assistance, recruitment and enrollment, 

program activities, and challenges and lessons learned. The chapter concludes with a summary 

of findings. 

Mentoring Programs 

School-based mentoring programs are an increasingly common form of mentoring. The goal of 

school-based mentoring is to help students develop positive relationships with adults who can 

help them stay on track. These programs differ from community-based mentoring programs in 

that they are located on a school campus, identify mentees through school faculty and staff 

referrals, engage teachers and school staff as mentors, and operate during the school year. These 

characteristics allow school-based programs to reach both youth and mentors who may not 

otherwise have the resources, inclination, or time to participate in a community-based mentoring 

program. 

School-based mentoring also appears to have distinct school-related benefits and outcomes for 

students. These may include improved behavior in school, increased attendance, improved 

coursework and class engagement, and a more positive perception of the importance of school 

and grades. On the other hand, school-based programs may also face unique challenges. There 

may be scheduling issues, particularly related to the extended break from the program during the 

summer; social barriers may exist, such as those that may crop up if a mentee’s peers perceive 

V-1 
 

 

 

the program as “uncool” and treat the mentee accordingly; and various administrative challenges 

can arise, such as difficulties in integrating an external program into a school.1 

With these considerations in mind, eight of the nine MEES schools have developed school-based 

mentoring programs to improve the educational and social outcomes of individual students as 

well as the overall climate of the schools. Berkshire JSHS, due to its unique residential structure, 

has developed a community-based mentoring program to support its students when they 

transition back to their home communities. All programs focus on adult one-on-one mentoring 

and some have a peer mentoring, group mentoring, or service-learning element. Exhibit V-1 

below shows the activities, goals, and outcomes that MEES schools have identified for their 

mentoring programs. 

Exhibit V-1: 

 Mentoring Program Activities, Intermediate Goals, and Long-term Desired Outcomes 

As is illustrated in Exhibit V-1, the core mentoring activities are adult mentoring, peer 

mentoring, and group mentoring (the latter may include service learning). These activities are 

directly tied to the program goals, which are providing in-school support to students, having an 

Herrera, C. and Karcher, M. (2007). School-Based Mentoring. In Research in Action (Issue 6). Retrieved from 

http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_387.pdf 

Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence and The National Mentoring Center at Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory (Revised September 2007). The ABCs of School-Based Mentoring: Effective 

Strategies for Providing Quality Youth Mentoring in Communities in Schools. Retrieved from 

http://gwired.gwu.edu/hamfish/merlin-cgi/p/downloadFile/d/20696/n/off/other/1/name/abcspdf/ 

V-2 

1 
 

extra set of eyes for students to help them stay on track, exposing students to new experiences, 

giving “middle of the road” students support, and connecting students to a role model. These 

goals, in turn, map to the desired outcomes for mentoring services, which are to increase 

attendance, decrease the number of students who drop out, improve academic performance, build 

leadership skills, and improve mentees’ self-confidence. 

To date, all of the schools have at least one component of their mentoring program up and 

running. School District of Philadelphia (SDP) schools identified mentoring CBOs in the fall of 

2009 and most began their start-up work in winter 2010. At six schools, program staff had made 

at least a few mentor-mentee matches as of the third site visit in spring 2010. Most programs 

used the 2010 summer break to strategize for the upcoming school year, as well as to recruit 

mentees and mentors through the schools’ summer programs. Program staff members anticipate 

having the mentoring programs fully implemented during fall 2010. 

Program Administration 

All nine grantees held a competitive bid process to identify a CBO partner to operate the 

mentoring component of the grant. The bid process occurred in the fall of 2009. Schools 

identified providers in fall 2009 and these partners were in the schools by the beginning of 2010, 

though in some cases the contract was not finalized until May or June of 2010. Du Bois HS has 

a structure slightly different from that of the other schools; while it also contracts with CBOs, it 

has four providers that oversee separate mentoring programs, each with distinct target groups. 

Berkshire JSHS held a competitive bid process, but was unable to identify a CBO with the 

necessary expertise in statewide recruitment to run the program. As a result, program staff 

decided to partner with Berkshire Farms, the nonprofit that operates components of the school. 

Although specific roles vary, mentoring providers are responsible for recruiting and training 

mentors and mentees, organizing events, overseeing mentor/mentee relationships, and generally 

managing the daily operations of the mentoring program. CBO roles within the schools may 

vary depending on the type of mentoring program and school structure in place. In general, 

school staff view CBO providers as being critical for recruiting adult community mentors (i.e., 

adult mentors from outside the school). CBOs are often able to draw on other programs they 

operate, either within or outside of the school, to identify eligible and interested adults from the 

community to mentor the MEES target groups. 

In some cases, schools have faced challenges in working with the CBO partners, particularly if 

partners were inexperienced in working with the MEES target population. For example, one 

CBO partner that had more experience with younger students discovered that its colorful 

branding and outreach strategies were not effective for high school students. In addition, one 

V-3 
 

 

CBO required home visits during the enrollment process, but learned that this was a major 

deterrent for high school students. Exhibit V-2 gives an overview of the partners and staffing 

structure for each mentoring program. 

Exhibit V-2: 

Overview of Grant-funded Mentoring Contractors and Staffing 

School Contractor Number of Contract Staff Number of School Staff 

Bartram HS Education Works 1 mentoring coordinator 

1 AmeriCorps assistant 

1 faculty liaison 

Berkshire 

JSHS 

Berkshire Farms 4 mentoring coordinators 

10 mentoring outreach 

coordinators 

8 mentor associates1 

Du Bois HS Big Brothers Big Sisters 

Mentoring Maryland 

Morgan State University 

Mentoring Young Minds 

0 0 

FitzSimons HS Education Works 1 mentoring coordinator 

2 AmeriCorps support staff 

1 faculty liaison 

Germantown 

HS 

Boys and Girls Club 1 mentoring coordinator 

1 assistant mentoring 

coordinator 

1 faculty liaison 

Lincoln HS Education Works 1 mentoring coordinator 

1 AmeriCorps assistant 

1 faculty liaison 

Overbrook HS Education Works 1 mentoring coordinator 

1 AmeriCorps assistant 

0 

University City 

HS 

Met, Inc. 5 part-time staff 

2 consultants 

12 

West 

Philadelphia 

HS 

The Netter Center 1 mentoring coordinator 0 

1 Berkshire JSHS hired 18 outreach staff at per diem rates. 

2 University City HS did not fund the faculty liaison through the MEES grant. 

As the Exhibit V-2 demonstrates, the staffing structures for the programs were widely divergent, 

especially between CBOs. In the SDP schools (with the exception of University City HS), the 

mentoring CBO provides at least one full-time mentoring coordinator, as well as a full-time 

assistant, which is often an AmeriCorps position. In the case of Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, 

Lincoln HS, and Overbrook HS, which have the same CBO partner, there is also a senior 

V-4 
administrator who oversees activities at all four schools, including supervising each site’s 

mentoring coordinator, handling invoices and facilitating biweekly meetings for staff. Berkshire 

JSHS has a different staffing structure; it has directly hired 22 staff (four mentoring coordinators, 

10 mentoring outreach coordinators, and eight mentor associates), most of which are paid on a 

per diem basis, to implement its program. The eight mentor associates operate the community 

service component of the grant and may have other duties within the school as well. At Du Bois 

HS, due to the nature of the contract, there were no dedicated or school-based staff persons. 

Instead, the contracted partners provided staff as needed. During the summer, the grant funded 

one teacher part-time to oversee the summer program. 

In addition to the CBO staff, four SDP schools had a faculty sponsor or liaison, whose role is to 

act as the link between the school and the provider and help the CBO access resources within the 

school (e.g., securing space, access to school assemblies, etc.) in order to integrate the program 

into the school environment. Faculty liaisons also build relationships with teachers in order to 

recruit them as mentors and generate referrals of students to be mentees. In several schools, the 

faculty liaison has been a major asset to the program, during both start-up and implementation, 

as some faculty liaisons were solely responsible for starting the program before the CBOs came 

onboard. At the time of the third site visit, at least one school without a faculty liaison still 

hoped to fill this position. 

The amount of funds allocated to mentoring programs varied by school. Schools expended 

between three and seven percent of their total MEES budgets on their mentoring programs, the 

vast majority of which went towards contracts with the CBO mentoring provider. Besides the 

contracts, other line items included the time spent on the program by the faculty liaison or 

sponsor, professional development for staff, extracurricular pay for teacher mentors, incentives 

for peer mentors and mentees, and funds to support events (e.g., food and space). 

Technical Assistance 

All schools received a variety of training and technical assistance services for their mentoring 

components, in both cross-site and individual settings. The Department of Labor (DOL) 

contracted with Branch Associates to provide technical assistance and training to schools. 

Branch Associates conducted the research and evaluation component and subcontracted to the 

United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania (UWSEPA) to provide technical assistance and 

training services. 

UWSEPA provided both large-scale training events and small webinars or calls as needed. They 

held five cross-site trainings for the mentoring partners and school staff in each city (one each in 

New York and Baltimore, and three in Philadelphia). These trainings provided attendees with 

V-5 
information about how to create a vision statement, market programs, recruit mentors, help 

matches stay connected, capitalize on social networks, and plan events. In addition, UWSEPA 

provided on-site volunteer training to the Philadelphia schools, which will be discussed later in 

the section on mentoring participants and supports. Feedback on the trainings was positive, 

though some staff reported that better follow-up would have been beneficial. In addition, at least 

one site felt that UWSEPA was not familiar with the target population and did not tailor the 

trainings to these students’ unique challenges and risk factors. 

Berkshire JSHS initially worked closely with the Mentoring Partnership of New York to design a 

customized mentoring approach that would suit its unique student population. The school had 

scheduled in-person trainings and monthly phone calls with this training provider. However, by 

the time of the second visit, DOL requested that Berkshire JSHS rely on the same UWSEPA 

mentoring assistance as the other MEES schools. Although UWSEPA worked with the 

Mentoring Partnership of New York to identify next steps for the Berkshire program to ensure 

that they would not be duplicating services, the transition in technical assistance providers was 

challenging. School staff felt that the relationship they had developed with the Mentoring 

Partnership of New York could not be easily replicated. In addition, staff felt that the Mentoring 

Partnership of New York had a better understanding of the school’s unique structure and 

environment than an out-of-state provider would have. 

Recruitment and Enrollment 

In developing their mentoring programs, school and partner staff defined each participant’s role 

and then adapted the recruitment and enrollment processes accordingly. Below are summaries of 

each mentoring participant’s role: 

	 Mentees. Mentees are the students receiving the bulk of the mentoring services 

from the adult and peer mentors. They may include ninth or tenth graders, 

depending on the program (though Berkshire JSHS is targeting all grade levels). 

Staff teams have developed the programs to meet mentees’ social, academic, and 

behavioral support needs through peer, adult, and group mentoring activities. 

	 Peer mentors. Peer mentors are mostly eleventh and twelfth graders who 

volunteer to serve as mentors. They are unique in their ability to help younger 

students navigate and understand the environment and culture of each school. 

Peer mentors may also receive limited mentoring from the adult mentors, if the 

program employs a cascade or tiered model of mentoring. Programs also focus on 

developing leadership skills for peer mentors, through training on conflict 

resolution, communication, and stress management. 

	 Adult mentors. Adult mentors are the teachers, staff or community members 

who volunteer to provide mentoring to mentees and, in some cases, to peer 

mentors. Adult mentors fill the following roles: (1) provide social and academic 

V-6 
support as needed; (2) serve as a reliable resource who can connect the student 

with other services, help them problem-solve their challenges, and advocate or 

mediate for the student; and (3) spend time with mentees in individual and group 

activities in order to build a strong and trusting relationship. 

Each school has identified a specific target group for mentees, peer mentors and adult mentors. 

The school staff, in conjunction with the TA providers, developed these target groups in order to 

maximize the effect that the mentoring program could have, keeping in mind the advantages and 

challenges unique to school-based mentoring. 

Program participants follow a standard enrollment process, which includes recruitment, 

application and screening, enrollment and training. Methods to recruit may vary depending on 

the specific target group. Similarly, the application and screening process varies widely in 

intensity, depending on whether the participant is a mentee or mentor. Below, these processes 

are outlined for each group. 

Mentees 

Schools are primarily targeting ninth graders as mentees, because ninth graders are an especially 

at-risk group and face considerable challenges while transitioning into high school. However, 

Berkshire JSHS is targeting its entire student body and West Philadelphia HS is targeting ninth 

and tenth graders. Each school is targeting between 50 and 135 students to be mentees. 

Mentee target groups include students with a range of personal, social, and academic 

characteristics. At least four schools are targeting students identified to be at risk of dropping 

out of school, or students with behavioral or academic challenges. For example, Germantown 

HS is targeting students on the Early Warning Indicator list. This list identifies students who 

have attended less than 70 percent of the instructional school days, failed English and Math, or 

failed three or more courses. Some schools are specifically targeting failing ninth graders. For 

instance, University City HS requires that failing ninth graders attend all mentoring activities. 

Other schools, however, are targeting any ninth grader interested in the program, with a 

particular focus on “middle of the road” students who may not be a specific target group for 

other interventions. One Lincoln HS mentoring staff member described these students: 

We have some mentees who are doing fine, but they just wanted to have a 

mentor. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that because those 

students who are in between always get left out. They aren’t that bad, but 

they aren’t good so they just get overlooked. 

To date, many of the programs have relied on mass recruitment efforts such as school-wide 

announcements or flyers, which result in students referring themselves to the program. Other 

V-7 
 

 

 

programs have held “mixers” or “meet-and-greet” events in order to engage potential participants 

and give them more information about the program. These efforts have been somewhat 

successful, but they do not necessarily reach the specific students the program hopes to target. In 

some cases, staff used tactics such as approaching specific students during lunch to tell them 

about the program or relying on teachers to nominate students. 

Moving forward, the CBOs plan to institute more systematic recruitment tactics. For example, if 

the program is targeting at-risk students, program staff may recruit these students through 

reinstatement meetings (meetings held when a student returns from suspension), teen court 

referrals, or counselor or teacher referrals. Exhibit V-3 gives an overview of targeted students, 

number recruited, and percent recruited as of the end of the 2009–2010 school year. 

Exhibit V-3: 

Mentees Targeted and Recruited as of the End of SY 2009–2010 

Targeted Students Progress 

School 

Ninth 

Grade 

Tenth 

Grade Number Recruited 

Percentage 

Reached 

Bartram HS  100 56 56% 

Berkshire JSHS   76 (entire student body) 0 0% 

Du Bois HS  110 13 12% 

FitzSimons HS  50 14 28% 

Germantown HS  100 24 24% 

Lincoln HS  100 40 40% 

Overbrook HS  135 44 33% 

University City HS  102 (whole class) 12 12% 

West Philadelphia HS   50 01 0% 

1 West Philadelphia HS has mentees in the peer mentoring program but none in the adult mentoring program. Peer mentees 

are not included here. 

Note: Data are from the end of year reports grantees submitted to DOL. Target numbers are for the 2009–2010 school year. 

Numbers are for one-on-one adult mentoring only. 

As the exhibit demonstrates, as of the end of the 2009–2010 school year, mentoring programs 

had met their recruitment goals at rates ranging from zero percent to 56 percent. As can be seen 

from the examples below, programs have had varying levels of recruitment success, depending 

on challenges associated with their program structure and staffing. 

V-8 
	 Berkshire JSHS, despite considerable planning and investment, has not yet 

been able to recruit mentees for its program because it has not identified 

mentors to pair them with. In order to provide positive adult relationships for 

the students after their transitions to their home communities, mentoring staff
 

planned to identify mentors in each community. However, recruiting community 

mentors in different locations has, so far, posed a major barrier and no mentors 

have been recruited. 

	 Bartram HS has made strong progress in recruiting mentees, having reached 

over half of its target goal by the end of the year. Bartram HS mentoring staff 

reported that the faculty liaison was extremely involved and supportive, helping to 

recruit mentees and launch the program before Education Works began its work 

in the school. Bartram HS’s success demonstrates that having a strong faculty 

member in place from the start can greatly facilitate implementation. 

Following recruitment, mentees fill out an application containing their contact information and 

interests and turn in a parental consent form. In some cases, they may fill out a more intensive 

form that includes their class schedule and/or grades, extracurricular activities, career aspirations, 

college plans, and family support systems. This process is relatively simple but it can be a 

challenge to make sure potential mentees turn in their paperwork, particularly the parental 

consent form. 

Peer Mentors 

For schools that are implementing peer mentoring programs, target peer mentors are students 

who staff members believe will have a positive influence on the mentees. These students are in 

eleventh or twelfth grade and in good standing academically and behaviorally. Most peer 

mentoring programs are specifically targeting eleventh graders, so that the mentee-mentor 

relationship can last for longer than one year. However, five schools have accepted either 

twelfth or tenth graders, if they show strong interest in the program. 

To date, methods for recruiting peer mentors have taken forms similar to those used for mentees, 

with some more targeted strategies as well. Tactics may be as informal as approaching potential 

mentors on campus or sending out flyers, but also include actively recruiting students on the 

honor roll or asking teachers for recommendations or referrals. In addition, several programs are 

targeting twelfth graders who had been mentors for the previous year’s summer bridge programs, 

given their previous mentoring experience and likelihood of being positive influences. Exhibit 

V-4 gives an overview of the numbers and grade levels of targeted peer mentors at each 

Philadelphia school, as well as the progress each school had made as of the third site visit. 

A comparison of Exhibit V-3 and Exhibit V-4 reveals that schools have had somewhat more 

success recruiting peer mentors than they had recruiting mentees. Because peer mentor service 

numbers are not reported in the MIS data, these numbers are only from the third site visits. 

V-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Lincoln HS was visited in early March, which may account for its relatively low number of peer 

mentors reported compared to the other sites, which were visited in May. Two key findings have 

arisen from analysis of the data on recruitment of mentees and peer mentors: 

	 Peer mentors are easier to recruit than mentees due to lower target numbers, 

a larger eligible pool, and their location on campus. Although programs have 

faced challenges in recruitment generally, peer mentors have so far proven to be 

the easiest participants to recruit. Programs have targeted fewer peer mentors 

than either mentees or adult mentors, as they are neither the primary recipients nor 

the primary providers of mentor support. In addition, having peer mentors on 

campus and personal relationships with these students has helped facilitate 

outreach. As a result, at the time of the third site visit, programs were closer to 

meeting their recruitment goals with peer mentors than they were with other 

participants. 

	 Germantown HS has used creative methods to recruit peer mentors. 

Although Germantown HS is only targeting eleventh grade peer mentors, it had 

reached almost half of its target by the third site visit. One factor in this success 

may be its Saturday School programming, which ninth and eleventh graders are 

required to attend. Leveraging this existing program, which targets the same 

groups of interest for the mentoring program, may have had a positive effect on 

recruiting peer mentors, who were able to interact with potential ninth grade 

mentees. 

Exhibit V-4: 

Peer Mentors Targeted and Recruited as the End of SY 2009-2010 

Targeted Students	 Progress 

Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Percentage 

School Grade Grade Grade Number Recruited Reached 

Bartram HS   15 8 53% 

FitzSimons HS    45 23 51% 

Germantown HS  50 24 48% 

Lincoln HS   25 5 20% 

Overbrook HS   20 8 40% 

University City HS1    31 

West Philadelphia HS  50 17 34% 

1 We were not able to identify a target number of peer mentors for University City HS. 

Note: Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS do not have peer mentoring programs. 

V-10 
Prospective peer mentors complete an application form and a parent consent form and, in some 

cases, need to submit letters of recommendation from teachers. Peer mentors may also be 

required to write about why they would like to become a peer mentor, what they would bring to 

the program, and what they hope to get out of it. In one of the more intensive processes at 

University City HS, peer mentors have an interview with the adult mentors. This not only gives 

staff another screening mechanism, but also provides interview experience for the student. 

Adult Mentors 

For eight of the nine schools, adult mentors can be teachers, school staff members, or adults from 

the community. Berkshire JSHS is unique in that it is targeting adults who live in the students’ 

home communities, so that students will have adult mentors when they transition back home 

from Berkshire JSHS residential center. Program staff members are looking for mentors who are 

positive role models, who match students’ demographics, and who meet the eligibility 

requirements (e.g., pass FBI clearance, do not have a felony charge, are old enough, etc.). 

FitzSimons HS, for instance, is hoping to recruit professional African American males to provide 

positive examples and influences for its mentees. 

Mentoring staff members have been successful in recruiting school-based mentors such as 

faculty and staff. To reach school-based mentors, program staff made presentations during 

common planning time, left flyers in faculty mailboxes, and put ads in the school newspaper. 

CBOs that are well-integrated into the school have been able to recruit staff or receive referrals 

from other programs. For example, at Bartram HS, Education Works operates both the 

mentoring program and the classroom assistance program and has benefitted from being able to 

recruit mentors (as well as receive referrals) from their staff members in other programs. 

Program staff members specifically target and recruit certain staff members who they think 

would make good role models or mentors for ninth graders. At SDP schools, teacher mentors 

receive extra-curricular pay for their time, which provides an additional incentive to participate. 

Community adult mentors continue to be very difficult to recruit. In the first several months of 

the program, programs set up information tables at local community centers and businesses, 

made presentations at local stakeholder meetings, and conducted outreach at churches and faithbased organizations. Programs also received referrals from friends and family members, and 

reached out to local universities. Yet, four schools had not recruited any community members to 

be mentors as of the end of SY 2009-2010. Exhibit V-5 highlights progress that schools have 

made recruiting adult mentors, including both school staff and community members. 

V-11 
Exhibit V-5: 

Adult Mentors Targeted and Recruited as of the End of SY 2009-2010 

Targeted Adults Progress 

School 

Teacher/ 

Staff 

Community 

Members Total Number Recruited 

Percentage 

Reached 

Bartram HS   50 18 36% 

FitzSimons HS   95 14 15% 

Germantown HS   100 34 34% 

Lincoln HS   50 10 20% 

Overbrook HS   40 16 40% 

University City HS  75 12 16% 

West Philadelphia HS   50 15 30% 

Berkshire JSHS  76 0 0% 

Du Bois HS  110 8 7% 

Note: Numbers are for one-on-one mentors only. 

As this exhibit demonstrates, adult mentors have been the most challenging participants to 

recruit, with no sites reaching over 40 percent of their target numbers as of spring 2010, and five 

sites below 30 percent of their targets. At this time, it is possible to make two observations 

regarding the recruitment of adult mentors: 

	 Schools with the lowest recruitment numbers plan to recruit only community 

mentors. The mentoring programs at Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS are 

recruiting only community mentors. As their numbers demonstrate, recruiting 

community mentors alone has delayed implementation due to the challenges 

involved with this particular target group. Schools that recruit staff and teachers 

to be adult mentors, as well as community members, have had more initial 

success in overall recruitment than those schools targeting only the latter group. 

	 Although University HS only recruits community mentors, it has been more 

successful in its recruitment efforts than the other schools with this single 

target group. University City HS’s partner Met, Inc. was proactive in 

conducting outreach and leveraging existing connections to reach potential adult 

community mentors. These strategies, which included hiring students at nearby 

universities to do outreach and recruiting Drexel University interns from the 2009 

summer bridge program, allowed the school to reach 16 percent of its recruitment 

target. 

V-12 
Currently, CBOs are leveraging resources and developing new strategies to reach adults outside 

of the school. Moving forward, programs plan to partner with other organizations in order to 

recruit mentors, especially for specific target groups. At Germantown HS, for instance, the Boys 

and Girls Club (BGC) plans to partner with the Center for Male Engagement as well as the 

Community Partnership for Neighborhood High Schools in the upcoming school year. BGC 

staff members anticipate that these organizations will be especially effective at recruiting male 

mentors. As with mentee and mentor recruitment, staff members are also continuing their 

recruitment of community mentors throughout the summer of 2010 in order to have them on 

board for the start of school in the fall. 

There is an intensive screening process for adult mentors, especially for community mentors. 

Teacher and community mentors submit an application form with their contact information, 

experience or training in mentoring, and their reasons for being interested in the program. 

Community mentors have the added steps of having a background check and securing FBI and 

child abuse clearances as well. These forms can be very time-consuming to fill out, process, and 

approve. Barriers to this process will be discussed in greater detail in the section on challenges. 

Matching 

At the time of the third-round site visits, six schools had begun to make mentor-mentee matches, 

with either peer or adult mentors. Schools hope to do one-to-one matching; however, due to 

recruitment challenges with adult mentors, schools have paired adult mentors with multiple 

mentees in some cases. Program staff members made these matches with the needs, interests, 

and risk factors of the mentees in mind. For example, if a mentee is struggling in a particular 

academic subject, the program might match this student with a teacher mentor who teaches that 

subject in order to provide the student with extra academic support. In addition, if there is a 

preexisting relationship between a teacher mentor and mentee, establishing a formal mentoring 

relationship may be the logical next step. Similarly, if a student has a particular career interest, 

staff members may try to find a community mentor in that profession. All programs do same-sex 

matching, although gender imbalances have proven to be a challenge, as will be discussed later. 

Mentees may need varying levels of support, depending on their risk factors, and staff members 

match these students accordingly. If a program does both peer and adult mentoring, a mentee 

with serious behavioral or disciplinary problems will be matched only with an adult mentor, as 

such issues may be too much for a peer mentor to address. Peer mentors work most commonly 

with those “middle of the road” students who could use support but are not targeted for higher 

intensity interventions. Students with the most serious barriers are referred to counseling or to 

programs that can provide more intensive support than the mentoring program can provide. 

V-13 
Programs use a variety of methods to get at the interests and needs of mentees, including 

questionnaires and observation during group events. Germantown HS uses a specific tool called 

Hemingway, which is a survey that can match mentors and mentees based on their interests and 

perspectives. In addition to such tools, at least six programs implemented group mentoring or 

activities prior to or during the matching process, in order to observe how mentors and mentees 

interact and to determine which pairs appear to have a natural affinity. 

Mentoring Activities 

Once the participants are enrolled in the program, they undergo training to prepare them for a 

mentoring relationship. UWSEPA provided this training for the Philadelphia schools (with the 

exception of West Philadelphia HS), through a leveraged grant from the Department of 

Education. UWSEPA offered three separate two-and-a-half-hour training modules, one each for 

adult mentors, peer mentors, and mentees. Although the trainings covered similar topics, the 

training curricula were tailored to each specific group. For example, the adult mentoring training 

covered a mentor’s role and responsibilities, relationship-building, diversity, and 

communication. The peer mentoring training had similar content, but focused as well on the 

small age gap between the peer mentor and the mentee and the specific challenges that this 

situation may generate. Some schools also provided their own mentor training in addition to that 

of the UWSEPA program, most often in order to orient adult community mentors to the school. 

Overall, feedback on these trainings was positive, though some adult mentors felt that, while it 

provided a strong introduction, it did not necessarily prepare the mentors to start building 

relationships with their mentees. 

Du Bois HS provides mentor training to its adult mentors through the Maryland Mentoring 

Partnership, a sister organization to UWSEPA. These trainings are 90 minutes long, occur on a 

quarterly basis, and focus less on relationship-building than on how to make sure a mentee is 

doing well and staying on track. For example, in addition to topics such as child development, 

safety, and family considerations, the training covers how to handle certain challenging 

situations and identify gang activity. 

The central component of all the MEES mentoring programs is a one-on-one relationship 

between an adult mentor and student mentee. Although several programs have peer mentoring, 

group mentoring, and service learning, these supplemental to the one-on-one relationship with an 

adult mentor. The supplemental program elements are designed to provide additional support to 

students and to give mentees and mentors an opportunity to interact in different settings. Each of 

these specific approaches to mentoring is described in more detail below. 

V-14 
 

One-On-One Adult Mentoring 

Although the adult mentoring component is not yet fully implemented, mentoring program staff 

members have developed a program structure, guidelines, and expectations to manage the 

relationships, keep both parties safe, and maximize the effectiveness of the relationship within 

the realistic limits of the program. 

Adult mentors commit to spending approximately five hours per month (approximately one hour 

per week) with their mentees. The meetings generally take place at school during or 

immediately after the school day, for safety and liability reasons. These meetings may take place 

during an allotted time (e.g., all pairs meet on Wednesday afternoons) or it may vary by match, 

as long as the meeting complies with location and time requirements. However, one program at 

Du Bois HS requires that meetings take place in a public space outside of school, emphasizing 

the importance of a neutral location. Berkshire JSHS’s program will take place entirely off 

campus, once the program launches and students return to their home communities. 

In addition to setting these parameters, program staff members developed systems to ensure that 

the relationship is productive, safe, and appropriate. Adult mentors are required to keep a regular 

log of their interactions with their mentees. At University City HS, mentoring staff members 

then enter this data into a master database of all mentor and mentee interactions. In addition, 

staff may call mentors and mentees on a regular basis to ensure that the program is meeting their 

expectations and that they are getting the support they need, and to see if any program elements 

need improvement. 

Adult mentors, especially teacher or staff mentors, feel that the program will strongly benefit 

some students, especially those in need of a medium level of support. These mentors felt that 

many students are in a position to succeed, but need slightly more support than they get in a 

classroom setting and less intensive support than a guidance counselor would offer. One Lincoln 

HS teacher mentor articulated his reason for participating: 

I really, really like this school a lot and I really wanted to involve myself 

and give as much of myself as I could to the students here. We have some 

great students... You can get a student in the classroom, but a lot of times 

they need something in addition to the classroom setting. So, maybe they 

need just a little guidance or a little help in their thinking or sorting 

through some issues that they are going through. 

In addition, teacher mentors feel that developing relationships with students outside of the 

classroom has improved their understanding of students’ backgrounds and family life, and how 

those factors influence students’ behavior in the classroom. This, in turn, helps teachers support 

V-15 
all their students, both academically and socially. A University City HS teacher spoke to this 

benefit: 

I definitely have gotten closer with one student in particular who I have in 

my second period class. I thought he was a good student; he works hard, 

he plays football here. And now that I do have the mentor-mentee 

relationship with him, I’ve learned a lot more about his family life and 

how he really needs a mother figure and a father figure.... It’s been an 

insight to me to understand why he acts certain ways. He’s a great kid 

and I think without the mentor program he would definitely be taking the 

wrong path. 

Although mentees had mixed feelings about being paired with adult mentors, many were positive 

about the support they hoped to receive from adults in particular. Mentees felt that adults had 

more valuable perspectives and would be better able to help them think through their challenges 

than peer mentors. Mentees also felt that having a staff or teacher mentor would provide them 

with an informal advocate in the school. 

However, some mentees were wary of having a teacher mentor because they did not feel 

comfortable interacting with teachers and/or felt they could not trust them. In other cases, 

students who have misbehaved in class or have had conflicts with teachers felt that they could 

not get along with teachers and were not sure that having them as mentors would be successful. 

Peer Mentoring 

For programs that include peer mentoring, the relationships take on a triadic or tiered model, in 

which the adult mentor functions as a mentor for both the peer mentor and the mentee. The three 

participants meet together as well as individually, though the frequency and structure of these 

specific meetings varies by program. Program staff members hope that after several meetings, 

peer mentors will be able to meet with mentees one-on-one. Peer mentors can then act as more 

immediate contacts for the mentees, especially if the adult mentor is from the community and is 

unable to be on campus frequently. 

A peer mentor’s role is to provide a positive role model within a school setting. Program staff 

members hope that peer mentors will provide mentees with guidance on how to adjust to high 

school, position themselves to succeed academically, and navigate social challenges. In addition, 

they hope that being a peer mentor will provide students with leadership and life skills that will 

help them succeed in the future. 

Some mentees were more excited about having a peer mentor than an adult mentor, because they 

felt they would be better able to connect with someone close in age. Mentees hoped that once 

their mentoring relationships strengthened, they could consider their peer mentors friends at 

V-16 
 

 

school on whom they could rely for help and guidance. In describing hopes for the peer 

mentoring component, one mentee said, 

If you get to know your mentor and start to trust them, I think you can go 

to them as a best friend sometimes. 

Peer mentors felt that their most important role was to prevent their mentees from making the 

same mistakes that they themselves made in ninth grade. Even with only a few years’ distance 

from ninth grade, peer mentors felt that getting off on the right foot in ninth grade was key to 

being successful later in high school. As one FitzSimons HS peer mentor said, 

In my ninth grade year, I didn’t take school so serious. My GPA is not as 

high as I would want it to be, now I’m struggling to bring it up to get 

accepted in to some colleges I’m applying to. I just want to tell the 

upcoming students to take your high school years serious so they won’t be 

struggling like I am. 

In addition to providing support to mentees, one goal of the peer mentoring programs is to equip 

peer mentors with leadership, conflict resolution, and communication skills that will benefit them 

in their lives and careers. For example, although West Philadelphia HS had not launched its 

adult mentoring component at the time of the last site visit,2

 the mentoring staff team developed a 

peer mentoring program as a class during the school day. The mentoring coordinator and 

integrated services coordinator facilitate the class, with occasional support from the school’s 

social worker. This model is unique because, rather than providing a one-time training to peer 

mentors, it provides an intensive curriculum during which peer mentors have an opportunity to 

develop their own skills, bond with each other, and position themselves to make a difference in 

their mentees’ lives. 

Group Mentoring Activities 

Mentoring programs have also implemented group mentoring, which encompasses a wide variety 

of activities and fills several functions for the program. These activities can range from 

afterschool get-togethers with food and icebreakers to off-site enrichment activities such as 

sports events and plays. A common event was a “mixer,” in which the program invited potential 

and current mentors and mentees to have refreshments and participate in games. One activity 

was a “speed networking” activity, in which participants stood in concentric circles, talked to the 

person across from them for a short period of time, and then rotated to the next person. 

Because West Philadelphia had not matched any mentees with adult mentors and had not employed a triad peer 

mentoring model, mentees paired with solely peer mentors were not included in the total number of mentees. 

V-17 

2 
To date, programs have used these group events as a way to see how certain mentees and 

mentors interact prior to making matches. In other cases, these events are purely supplemental to 

the one-on-one meetings and create a way for mentees to stay involved with afterschool and 

other enrichment activities, bond with each other, and make connections with others in the 

school. At the same time, group activities can function as exciting incentives for student 

participation. 

Germantown HS has integrated group mentoring into its Saturday School for ninth and eleventh 

graders. This program has been especially effective at integrating mentoring into pre-existing 

school structures and further strengthening relationships between mentors and mentees (see text 

box below). 

Germantown HS’s Saturday School Mentoring 

Germantown HS developed a creative practice to engage mentors and mentees in a less 

formal setting. Ninth and eleventh graders are required to attend Saturday School, in which 

they receive academic instruction and test preparation in the morning, and enrichment and 

mentoring activities in the afternoon. Because this program includes all target groups (ninth 

grade mentees, eleventh grade peer mentors, and teacher mentors), Saturday School 

provides an opportunity for all participants to meet and build relationships outside of a 

normal school setting. While this program remains supplemental to the core mentoring 

program for now, mentoring staff hoped to formalize this mentoring component and invite 

community mentors to participate as well during the upcoming school year. 

Two schools, West Philadelphia HS and Berkshire JSHS, have implemented service learning as a 

supplemental component of the mentoring programs. The goal is to engage mentees and mentors 

together in a community service activity, so that the program participants can spend more time 

together while also giving back to the community. West Philadelphia HS mentoring staff 

members partner with City Year to organize community service events. Twice a semester, one 

staff member or teacher and four students participate together in a service activity. This builds 

relationships between students and teachers and gives students an opportunity to fulfill their 

community service requirement for graduation. 

Berkshire JSHS has implemented two types of community service activities for students who 

have good behavior and academics. One community service setting is a nursing home for the 

elderly and the other involves grounds work at a community park and museum. Students 

accompany community service staff members to these sites and spend a few hours per week 

engaged in community service work. Moving forward, in light of the delayed implementation of 

community mentoring and the success of the community service activities, Berkshire JSHS 

mentoring staff members hope to connect students with community service opportunities when 

they return to their home communities. 

V-18 
Mentoring Challenges and Lessons Learned 

The mentoring programs have faced a series of challenges, some of which have been resolved 

and others of which continue to be addressed. However, there have also been successes and 

lessons learned which will help improve the mentoring programs going forward. 

Challenges with Recruitment 

Programs have faced varying degrees of difficulty in recruiting adult and peer mentors and 

mentees. Although some groups are easier to recruit and have more inherent interest in the 

program, program staff members have had to develop and refine their outreach strategies in order 

to reach their target groups and numbers. Below are some specific recruitment challenges that 

have surfaced. 

	 Recruiting community mentors has been extremely difficult. Although 

programs aimed to have at least half of their adult mentors come from the 

community, they have not been able to reach this goal. Recruitment of 

community mentors has been an extremely slow process due to eligibility issues, 

lack of interest, scheduling conflicts, and challenges with outreach. 

	 It is not easy to get through the screening process. The rigorous 

screening process for community mentors has caused delays in getting 

potential mentors started in the program. In addition, strict eligibility 

requirements exclude many interested people. One common issue is 

that community mentors cannot have criminal records; however, 

people who are interested in mentoring students are frequently those 

who were involved with the justice system and have since turned their 

lives around and want to give back to the community.
 

	 Some potential mentors would rather mentor younger students. 

Some potential mentors are daunted by the prospect of working with 

teenagers, believing them more difficult to connect with than younger 

students. 

	 The school schedule makes it difficult for mentors to attend 

activities. Because school-based mentoring takes place during the 

school day, community members with regular jobs are less likely to 

participate. Even programs occurring after school are often too early 

for community mentors. Some schools have developed other methods 

to engage community mentors outside of regular working hours, such 

as Saturday programming. 

	 Conducting outreach outside of the school is more resourceintensive. Community mentors are by nature more difficult to reach 

than individuals already located within the school setting. Conducting 

outreach in the community therefore requires extra time and 

V-19 
resources. Program staff members are working on refining existing 

strategies to make them more effective. 

	 It has been difficult to recruit sufficient numbers of male mentors. Although 

the evaluation does not have data on the specific gender break-down of mentors 

and mentees, respondents at several schools said that it was difficult to find 

enough male mentors. Although this is a particularly acute challenge at 

FitzSimons HS, which is an all-boys school, several of the schools reported the 

same issue, although at least one school reported having a more difficult time
 

recruiting female mentees, which leads to the same gender imbalance. So far, 

these situations have meant either that matching is delayed or that each existing 

male mentor is matched with more than one mentee. 

	 Some potential mentees are reluctant to participate because they think there 

is a stigma attached to having a mentor. Although some programs reported 

pride and excitement about the program among mentees, program staff members 

in some schools reported that students feel that having a mentor carries a social 

stigma. Students associate having a mentor with having a social worker or case 

manager, and therefore needing extra help from adults within the school. Staff
 

members at these programs hope that once the program is up and running, 

students will understand more about what mentoring truly is, making it easier to 

recruit mentees.
 

Challenges with Logistics 

Programs faced a variety of logistical and compliance challenges that delayed their 

implementation plans. Although these were frustrating, mentoring staff members have overcome 

them and taken them into consideration in planning for the upcoming school year. 

	 Starting the program in the middle of the school year made it difficult to 

implement effectively. Because, in most cases, the mentoring CBOs did not 

begin working in the schools until winter 2010, they only had a short planning 

period before beginning implementation. Programs that aimed to make matches 

before the end of the school year had to scramble at times in order to meet this 

short deadline. At some schools, the burden fell on the faculty liaison to begin the 

startup process before the CBO came on-board. In addition, starting in the middle 

of the school year made it more difficult to integrate the program into the school, 

as most other programs and organizations were already in full swing by midyear. 

	 Scheduling a program around participants’ busy schedules, within the 

confines of a school setting, has been a challenge. Because mentoring programs 

take place during the school day or after school, many participants have 

conflicting commitments. Teacher mentors may also run other school programs, 

such as coaching a sports team. For programs that operate peer mentoring, peer 

mentors—who are generally more engaged in school than the average student— 

often have other commitments as well. Programs that meet during the school day 

have the added difficulty of trying to schedule around the students’ academic 

schedules; in some cases, this has been detrimental to participation levels in the 

program. Safety concerns are also an issue; program staff members are concerned 

V-20 
about sending students home in the dark and thus try to schedule programming 

earlier in the day. 

Lessons Learned 

Through the experience of implementing mentoring programs, often under challenging 

circumstances, school and mentoring program staff members have learned a number of lessons 

that they hope to apply during the 2010–2011 school year. 

	 Having a clear set of guidelines from the outset can help ensure a smooth 

implementation. Several program staff members reported that they had to 

restructure their mentoring program somewhat late in the year due to confusion 

around grant requirements. Moving forward, maintaining clear expectations and 

guidelines for the program will create less confusion during the implementation 

phase and make it easier for the program to gain buy-in and support. 

	 Faculty liaisons or sponsors are critical to gaining support for the program 

within the school. As described in the challenges section, CBO partners in 

schools that did not have faculty liaisons had a more difficult time gaining 

acceptance within the school. A faculty liaison not only helped secure resources 

such as space for the program, but also advocated for the program with teachers, 

administrators, and students, which greatly increased participation. A partner at 

Overbrook HS said: 

I think having a staff liaison [is a best practice]. Having that person on 

board to help you navigate the culture of the school helps you with some 

roadblocks. The information is so valuable and saves so much time and 

frustration. 

	 Structuring a program around participants’ schedules can increase 

involvement in the program. Program staff found that it was incredibly difficult 

to recruit community mentors because they could not come to the program events 

scheduled during or immediately following the school day. One effective strategy 

is providing programming outside of the normal school day. Germantown HS 

operates its mentoring program during Saturday School, which ninth and eleventh 

graders are required to attend. This structure provides a time when most mentors 

are available to meet with mentees and is also an informal setting for developing 

mentoring relationships. Moving forward, Germantown HS’s provider, the Boys 

and Girls Club, plans to open the mentoring program to community mentors on 

Saturdays as well. 

	 Coordination among staff members and CBOs in the schools can increase 

participation in the program. Two schools contracted with mentoring providers 

that also operated other programs within the school. For example, at West 

Philadelphia HS, the Netter Center operates both the SSC and the mentoring 

program. At Bartram HS, Education Works operates both mentoring and ISS. 

The organizational ties between programs improve their coordination and allow 

them to leverage each other’s resources. At West Philadelphia HS, the SSC 

coordinator acts as a liaison between the mentoring staff and the school 

administration when students need to transfer into the peer mentoring class. In 

V-21 
 

addition, strong ties between a CBO’s programs increase mentor recruitment, as 

other CBO staff may volunteer as mentors or have additional connections to 

school-based staff that facilitate recruitment. 

Overall, program participants are optimistic about the program and, as of the third site visit, were 

looking forward to its full implementation in the 2010–2011 school year. Mentoring staff 

reported that group activities had been successful and frequently ran long because mentors and 

mentees were so engaged. Program staff members are working on additional strategies for the 

upcoming school year to promote interaction and relationship-building between participants. 

School Climate Strategies 

One of the MEES grant’s primary goals is to improve school climate, with the specific aim of 

reducing the number of violent incidents in the schools, especially those that count toward the 

“Persistently Dangerous School” status. To work toward realizing this goal, MEES schools have 

adopted a variety of approaches designed to increase attendance, increase students’ and teachers’ 

sense of safety, create an environment conducive to learning, and make overall institutional 

improvements in order to create a sense of ownership and school pride. 

Climate has already begun to improve at five MEES schools, as evidenced by a decline in 

suspensions and serious incidents, as well as removal from the “Persistently Dangerous Schools” 

list. In some cases, other MEES-funded strategies may be influencing this positive change in 

school climate. For example, class size reduction—an educational strategy—also helps improve 

the climate by making it easier for teachers to control classes and for students to learn. 

Similarly, matching students with mentors and providing them with academic and social support 

may reduce the poor behavior that would otherwise affect climate negatively. 

Program Administration 

The climate interventions that schools have implemented are quite varied, so it follows that their 

budgets and staffing structures are varied as well. For example, some schools hired dedicated 

climate staff as a primary strategy, while others merely funded partial time from existing staff 

members to operate climate programs. In addition, because schools began implementing climate 

interventions relatively late compared to other MEES strategies, at least five schools are still 

planning to hire staff, contract with CBOs, and launch climate programs. 

The amount of the overall MEES budget that schools spent on climate interventions was diverse 

and corresponded to the intervention’s anticipated intensity. In eight schools, between 2.8 

V-22 
 

 

 

percent and 12.9 percent of the overall budget went towards climate interventions.3 Schools that 

hired climate staff and contracted with CBO partners to provide climate programs had the largest 

budgets. Other line items related to school climate included professional development for staff, 

staff hours devoted to the project, incentives for students, and event expenses (e.g., food and 

space). 

In SY 2009-2010, schools generally did not launch climate intervention programs that require 

CBO partners. One exception is Overbrook HS, which has contracted with the Anti-Violence 

Partnership of Philadelphia and Philadelphia Project P.R.I.D.E. to provide conflict resolution and 

counseling groups a few times a week for students affected by violence and for at-risk students. 

In addition, Bartram HS has launched an in-school suspension program with Education Works, 

which also operates its mentoring program. Although the in-school suspension program was not 

MEES-funded this year, school staff reported that it would be in the 2010–2011 school year. 

Moving forward, at least three schools had plans to identify and establish a contract with a CBO 

to provide climate improvement programs in the school. FitzSimons HS had already identified a 

CBO partner to provide its Rites of Passage program, but had not yet implemented the program 

at the time of the third site visit. Other schools planned to partner with the Anti-Violence 

Partnership of Philadelphia to increase their services or develop new programs in the schools. 

As will be described in further detail below, four schools used MEES funds to hire staff 

dedicated to improving climate. In addition, two schools used MEES funds to hire teachers 

dedicated to in-school suspension programs. Schools with peer mediation and other programs 

requiring time from staff members not dedicated to climate interventions used the MEES grant to 

fund the hours that these staff members devoted to these programs. 

Technical Assistance 

American Institute of Research (AIR) provided the majority of the training and technical 

assistance on climate change for all nine schools. Activities included train-the-trainer sessions 

and ongoing assistance to schools. A large portion of this work occurred toward the end of the 

2009–2010 school year. AIR provided the following specific activities: 

	 CHAMPS training. In May 2010, all seven Philadelphia schools and Du Bois 

HS attended a training hosted by Safe and Civil Schools for their CHAMPS 

curriculum. CHAMPS is a positive behavioral intervention program that helps 

teachers develop skills in classroom management. Specific topics included 

Note that Berkshire JSHS did not provide a breakdown of the budget by strategy. 

V-23 

3 
setting expectations in the classroom, establishing consequences, managing 

behavior, and creating a strong classroom structure. The training was presented 

as a “train-the-trainer” training, so that staff who attended the event could then 

train their colleagues at the schools. Forty-two participants from these eight 

schools attended the training, which took place in Philadelphia. 

	 Peers Making Peace training. In April and May 2010, AIR funded a training on 

the Peers Making Peace program, another train-the-trainer program in which 

school staff members learn how to implement peer mediation programs in their 

schools. Forty participants from the Philadelphia schools attended this training. 

	 Ongoing assistance to schools. To varying degrees, AIR provided ongoing 

assistance as needed to the nine schools. Du Bois HS in particular developed a 

close relationship with its technical assistance consultant. This consultant 

happened to be located near the school and was able to attend the MEES team’s 

weekly meetings.
 

School Climate Activities 

School climate interventions, by definition, target the entire school. However, individual climate 

strategies can focus their efforts on (that is, target) smaller groups of students whose behavior 

can negatively affect school climate. Together, both kinds of strategies can contribute to an 

overall improved environment throughout the school. 

Strategies that target specific groups address behaviors that students in these smaller groups 

display. These students show signs of being “at-risk” and dropping out, in that they have poor 

attendance, behavior, and academic performance. Interventions may target a specific dimension 

of this behavior; for example, doing home visits can help students with poor attendance. 

In addition to improving the problematic behaviors of certain students, some climate strategies 

also work from a more asset-based approach in that they strengthen the leadership skills of 

students already poised to be leaders. Peer mediation programs, for example, identify students 

with strong leadership skills and provide them with the training to prevent and resolve conflicts 

among other students and teachers. These students may also lead the way in terms of buying into 

certain school-wide programs and providing a positive example for the rest of the student body. 

Similarly, school-wide incentive programs recognize and reinforce positive behavior, creating 

models for the student body based on the school’s successful students. Exhibit V-6 gives an 

overview of the school climate activities each school has implemented or plans to implement. 

V-24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit V-6: 

School Climate Interventions Implemented at Each School 

School-Wide Interventions Target-Group Interventions Dedicated Staff Incentive Program Professional Development for Staff Peer Mediation In-School Suspension Rites of Passage 

Bartram HS  * 

Berkshire HS  

Du Bois HS   

FitzSimons HS    * 

Germantown HS  

Lincoln HS  * 

Overbrook HS 

University City HS * 

West Philadelphia HS * 

 - implemented * - planned to be implemented or funded by the MEES grant as of fall 2010 

This exhibit shows that the school climate interventions can be grouped into two broad 

categories. The first three types of interventions—dedicated staff, incentive programs, and 

professional development for staff—fall under the category of school-wide interventions. The 

last three interventions—peer mediation, in-school suspension, and Rites of Passage—fall under 

the category of target group interventions. To date, hiring climate staff has been the most 

frequently implemented strategy, with five schools having hired dedicated staff. Peer mediation 

is the next most common intervention, especially in the SDP schools, but has not yet been fully 

launched. Following is a further discussion of each of the climate interventions exhibited above. 

School-wide Interventions 

School-wide interventions aim to improve climate by increasing student buy-in, creating a sense 

of school pride, and increasing students’ overall sense of safety. These interventions include 

hiring staff members dedicated specifically to climate improvement at the school, instituting 

programs that incentivize desired behaviors, and providing professional development for staff. 

Dedicated Staffing 

Four schools used MEES funds to hire at least one staff person dedicated to improving climate 

throughout the school. The goals for having dedicated climate staff in the schools are farreaching; school administrators hope that having staff who can deal with attendance, discipline, 

V-25 
and general environment issues will improve performance in all areas of the school. More 

specific goals include the following: 

	 a calmer school environment, with fewer disruptive incidents and reduced 

violence; 

	 increased attendance; 

	 improved educational outcomes; and 

	 prevention of and improved response to violent and disruptive incidents. 

For those schools that hired climate staff with MEES funds, these staff members serve as the 

core element of the schools’ climate strategy. These staff members are responsible for clearing 

the halls, monitoring students coming into the building, and generally “putting out fires” 

throughout the school day. More targeted work involves relationship-building with individual 

students, as well as activities similar to case management. These case management activities 

may range in intensity from providing comprehensive mediation and crisis intervention support 

to helping students with chronic absences improve their attendance. Core responsibilities 

include the following: 

	 monitor the hallways and ensure students are in class during class periods; 

	 be the “front line” for disciplinary issues, before referral to the administration; 

	 build relationships and act as a liaison between students and administrators; 

	 mediate between students or between students and teachers; 

	 moderate reinstatement meetings when students return from suspension; 

	 monitor students entering the school to ensure proper dress code and to deal with 

infractions when students bring in prohibited items;
 

	 strategize about how to improve school climate; 

	 provide professional development and assistance to teachers on classroom and 

climate management; and 

	 coordinate with other school staff, community members, and parents to prevent 

and address climate issues. 

The most intensive model is Berkshire JSHS’ Behavior Management Specialist (BMS) position 

(see text box). MEES funds allowed Berkshire JSHS to hire three new BMSs, increasing their 

total number to five. The BMS position combines school climate and case management 

responsibilities. While BMSs have cohorts of students whom they oversee and work with 

individually as a case manager does, their responsibilities also include strategizing about how to 

improve overall climate and reduce violence. The BMS team has identified unsuccessful 

practices, such as hallway monitoring and having in-school suspension rooms, and implemented 

a new model that has been successful in reducing violent incidents in the school. In this model, 

V-26 
each BMS moves his or her cohort around the school in between classes in a structured manner 

and prevents interactions that could lead to disruption or violence. In the classroom, the BMSs 

have become an integral part of improving the classroom environment and reducing violence. 

The other MEES schools developed less intensive roles for their climate staff members, though 

these staff members are also integral in maintaining order and improving climate. Du Bois HS 

developed a Student Support Team, made up of several MEES-funded staff members, which 

develops plans to improve safety and environment in the school. The other MEES-funded 

climate staff members were climate managers at Bartram HS and Lincoln HS, four support staff 

from Kids First at Lincoln HS, and a manager of non-instructional school services at Overbrook 

HS. In addition to having climate-focused responsibilities, some climate staff members operate 

other programs and enrichment activities. For example, at Bartram HS, the climate manager cofacilitates Rites of Passage, operates a college information group for seniors, acts as advisor for a 

music production group, and coaches the junior varsity basketball team. Participating in other 

programs allows the climate manager to build key relationships and integrate into the school 

community. Finally, some climate staff took on case management roles; however, their 

responsibilities focused less on individual students and more on maintaining order in the school. 

Berkshire JSHS’ Behavior Management Specialists in the Classroom 

A BMS’s central responsibility is to accompany his or her cohort of students through their day, 

including being present in the classroom. Within the classroom, there is a three-adult structure 

that includes the teacher, the BMS, and a teaching assistant, creating at 1:4 staff-to-student 

ratio in the 12-student classes. Having non-instructional mediation staff in the classroom has 

allowed teachers to focus their efforts on teaching, rather than on handling conflicts and 

disciplining students. In addition, having more staff in the classroom means that staff 

members, especially the BMSs, are able to intervene before a conflict escalates, which is 

critical to keeping violent incidents to a minimum. 

Although adapting to this structure initially caused friction, the administration, teachers, and 

climate staff have worked together to delineate roles among the classroom staff. The teacher 

is responsible for delivering instruction and planning lessons, while the teaching assistant 

works one-on-one with students, provides documentation and grading assistance, motivates 

students, monitors attendance and reinforces instructional content. In the classroom, the BMS 

ensures the safety of all present, provides pre-crisis intervention and therapeutic crisis 

intervention counseling, and removes students from the situation if a conflict arises. For the 

teams that have embraced this structure and worked together to present a united front to the 

students, this approach has been very successful in improving instruction, reducing violence, 

and creating an environment more conducive to learning. 

To date, schools have reported that these additional staff members have made a difference by 

keeping the hallways clear during class time and ensuring that students were in class. Even just 

making their presence felt has led to major changes in the schools, as students feel that climate 

staff members are watching them and therefore improve their behavior accordingly. 

V-27 
Moving forward, climate staff members plan to continue building relationships within the school 

in order to increase support for their work and implement more strategic interventions. These 

interventions include holding assemblies to reinforce school policies, holding violence 

prevention workshops, and providing technical assistance to teachers on improving classroom 

environment and attendance. 

Incentive Programs 

Three MEES schools (Berkshire JSHS, Du Bois HS, and FitzSimons HS) have implemented 

school-wide incentive programs. The goal of these programs is to reinforce and promote good 

behavior, attendance, and academic achievement among students. If students and teachers 

jointly participate in setting goals and recognizing improvement, then these programs can also 

help to create school pride and increase students’ buy-in. Programs may include school-wide 

assemblies, fun events as rewards, and general encouragement from the school community to 

improve behavior and attendance. 

Incentive programs combine rewards and recognition for positive and improved behavior among 

students. They involve a points system, in which teachers and staff members recognize students’ 

positive and negative behaviors, and award or dock points accordingly. Students who meet 

certain benchmarks receive an award of some kind, such as recognition at an assembly, pizza 

parties, food, or other items. For example, at Berkshire JSHS, students can save up points to 

purchase items that range from laundry detergent to iPods, while at FitzSimons HS, students are 

recognized in front of their peers during weekly assemblies. Recognition, especially in front of 

others, is a particularly important component, as students may not receive positive reinforcement 

for their work or behavior elsewhere in their lives. It also encourages other students to live up to 

their examples. One FitzSimons HS student said: 

I believe that giving out awards motivate students. You let them know you 

are feeling good about us, and we feeling good about our self. Because 

some parents don’t show that type of affection or love. 

In addition to recognizing students who have displayed good or improved behavior, incentive 

programs can also provide leadership opportunities for students who are up to the task. At 

Berkshire JSHS, three students were selected by staff to develop and operate the incentive 

program. These three students tally points, take orders from other students on how they want 

their points spent, and maintain an inventory of the supplies or rewards. These students take 

their work extremely seriously. Not only have they gained experience in operating a store or 

warehouse business, but they have also gained leadership and ownership skills that set them 

apart from the rest of the student body. 

V-28 
Professional Development for Teachers and Staff 

At the time of the third site visit, at least three schools (Du Bois HS, FitzSimons HS, and West 

Philadelphia HS) had provided or planned to provide professional development to teachers and 

staff on how to improve climate, both in the classrooms and school-wide. For instance, Du Bois 

HS provided a 40-hour session on classroom management for teachers, called Classroom 

Organization and Management Program (COMP). The program focused on classroom 

management and maintaining an environment conducive to learning. In addition to specific 

trainings, climate staff members provide other assistance to teachers, such as general assistance 

on classroom management or more targeted support for teachers whose classes students are more 

likely to cut. Finally, climate staff may provide assistance to others with roles in maintaining a 

positive climate. For example, the climate manager at Lincoln HS provides professional 

development to school police officers. 

Target-Group Interventions 

All MEES schools also implemented strategies that targeted specific students who have 

behavioral or attendance problems. Some programs, like peer mediation, take an asset-based 

approach by providing leadership opportunities for students within the school that are prepared 

to take on these roles. 

Peer Mediation 

Peer mediation programs are a central component of climate strategies at several SDP schools. 

Although these programs are currently in varying states of implementation, five MEES schools 

had at least begun planning for a peer mediation program at the time of the third site visit. Even 

for those that had identified and trained peer mediators, all schools were waiting until fall 2010 

to fully launch the program. School staff and students attended the Peers Making Peace trainthe-trainer session, funded by AIR, in spring 2010. Staff members who attended this training are 

now certified to provide training to students as peer mediators. 

In peer mediation programs, students trained as mediators help other students and teachers 

resolve their conflicts through individual mediation sessions. The programs are designed to 

improve school climate not only by providing a means for resolving conflicts, but also by giving 

students a voice, a role, and a sense of ownership over how conflict is handled in the school. In 

order to get this process started, programs selected the highest-performing and most engaged 

students to train as peer mediators so that other students would buy in to and respect the 

program. Program staff identified these students through teacher referrals and attempted to 

select a group of students that was representative of the demographics of the student body. 

Moving forward, programs may recruit students who are not as engaged or successful 

academically, but who would benefit from the increased connection to school as peer mediators. 

V-29 
Conflicts are referred to peer mediation in a variety of ways, depending on the school and 

program, though the most frequent referral methods are the following: (1) staff refers a conflict 

to peer mediation, (2) students request peer mediation, or (3) students are referred according to 

another specific process (e.g., students returning from suspension are required to have a 

mediation). A mediation consists of two peer mentors, the two individuals in conflict, and 

another adult in the room for security. The angrier party then tells his or her side of the story to 

one peer mediator, who listens and repeats what that person has said as neutrally as possible. 

The second party then does the same with the other peer mediator. The parties repeat this 

process until they have discussed all aspects of the conflict and have come to a resolution. The 

parties then sign an agreement that they will abide by in the future to prevent more conflicts. 

The faculty or staff members involved in the program may then follow up in the future to ensure 

the parties are following the agreement. If they are not, the staff members refer the students for 

further disciplinary action. 

Staff and students were excited about the possibilities that peer mediation offered in terms of 

solving problems between students and reducing recurring conflict in the school. Students 

involved in the peer mediation programs articulated that, as teenagers, they are uniquely suited to 

solve conflicts among their peers, whereas having staff conduct mediations maintains a punitive 

or disciplinary element. Students may also be in a better position to understand how students 

feel towards the school and the type of support they need to be successful. One Germantown HS 

peer mediator said: 

It’s teen problems, so it makes sense that it would be a teen that helps to 

solve it. We’re here to listen to you, and that’s what people need, because 

kids here feel neglected, so it will help if they have someone to talk to who 

will listen to them. 

In-School Suspension 

Three MEES schools have implemented an in-school suspension program (ISS) that is either 

currently grant-funded or will be grant-funded in the upcoming school year. In-school 

suspension programs aim to give students an intermediate step before out-of-school suspension 

becomes necessary. Out-of-school suspension not only stays on students’ records, it also hurts 

their academic performance by making them miss class and fall behind. In addition, the prospect 

of out-of-school suspension may not deter students if they view it as a “free day” or day off from 

school rather than as a disciplinary measure. In-school suspension provides an alternative by 

keeping students on campus, preserving their records, and providing them with academic and 

behavioral support so they do not fall too far behind and are less likely to continue misbehaving. 

Bartram HS, Germantown HS, and University City HS implemented in-school suspension 

programs during the 2009–2010 school year, with University HS implementing ISS as early as 

V-30 
October 2009. Schools have used different names to refer to the program to remove the stigma 

of “suspension.” Germantown HS’s program is called “Alternative Learning Center,” while 

University City HS has named its ISS the “In-School Intervention Program.” Germantown HS 

and University City HS have used MEES grant funding to hire teachers to provide instruction 

and assistance in the suspension room. Bartram HS plans to put MEES funding towards the 

contract with Education Works, the CBO that operates its in-school suspension program. 

ISS programs are designed for students with Level One infractions, minor level misbehavior, or 

attendance infractions (e.g., cutting class, dress code violations, having a cell phone in class, 

disrupting class, etc.). In some cases, ISS serves students with more serious offenses. In order to 

ensure that the program does not become a default “dumping ground” for difficult students, 

schools have implemented a process by which teachers refer students to a dean, climate manager, 

or other administrator. This person then determines, independently or with a team of staff 

members, whether the student should go to ISS. Often a student will have intermediate 

disciplinary action prior to ISS, such as detention or a parent conference. Students spend 

between one and five days in ISS; on average there are 10 students in the room at any given time. 

Because the goal of ISS is to both prevent students from falling behind academically and to 

improve their behavior, the services in ISS are a mix of academic and behavioral interventions. 

At Bartram HS, students receive preparation for the PSSA in the morning and character building, 

conflict resolution, and anger management activities in the afternoon. Instead of test preparation, 

students may also receive schoolwork from their teachers or academy deans, though sending the 

work to ISS can be a challenge to coordinate. While in ISS, students are not permitted to leave 

the room; they even receive their lunches in the room and are completely isolated from the rest 

of the school. 

To date, schools reported that few students return to ISS after going there once, so it appears to 

be a successful deterrent. Staff members speculate that this is because students severely dislike 

being separated from their peers during the school day and not having the freedom of out-ofschool suspension. One Germantown HS student said: 

When you are suspended [and at home], you watch TV, you call your 

friends. When you are in in-school suspension, you really do your work. 

[ISS] is better than having the students who break the rules go out and 

play. 

In addition, staff at Germantown HS reported that most students assigned to ISS are ninth 

graders, as they are more likely to have poor behavior than older students in the school. 

V-31 
ISS programs are still in the development stage, as schools work out how to use the program 

most effectively as both a disciplinary and rehabilitative measure. For example, staff at 

University City HS have yet to decide how many times a student can go to ISS before receiving 

out-of-school suspension because, to date, no students have gone more than twice. School staff 

members continue to develop concrete processes for determining who goes to in-school 

suspension, what type of work they do there, and what the atmosphere of the room should be. 

For example, at least one program has difficulty creating an environment conducive to learning 

and instruction, as students often sleep or talk while in the room and, at times, challenge staff 

with disruptive behavior. In addition, ISS staff members are working with teachers to make sure 

they understand why students go to ISS and what the program is designed to accomplish so that 

teachers do not send students to ISS for inappropriate reasons (e.g., to make up a test). School 

staff members continue to work on gaining teacher, staff, and student buy-in to the goals of inschool suspension, which is critical to making it successful as a disciplinary measure, academic 

strategy, and behavioral intervention simultaneously. 

Rites of Passage 

Two MEES schools (Bartram HS and FitzSimons HS) had either implemented or planned to 

implement a Rites of Passage program at the time of the third site visit. This program targets atrisk male ninth graders and provides a space for them to discuss challenges related to school, 

relationships with their families and friends, their communities, and other topics they may not 

feel comfortable talking about with others. 

At Bartram HS, the MEES-funded climate manager co-facilitated this program with a school 

counselor. Students are engaged during this program and share their feelings with each other and 

with facilitators about their school experiences, challenges, and dreams (see text box). So far, 

this program has been successful in engaging the most at-risk students in the ninth grade. 

Although FitzSimons HS plans to implement a Rites of Passage program and had identified a 

CBO to run it, the program was not up and running by the time of the third site visit. 

V-32 
Bartram HS’s Rites of Passage Program 

The MEES-funded climate manager and counselor at Bartram HS co-facilitate a Rites of 

Passage program for at-risk ninth grade males. The program has been successful in 

engaging at-risk students and giving them adult role models they can trust. The Rites of 

Passage staff gathers information from students’ teachers, who let them know whether or 

not the students are on track academically. Staff engages students in dialogue about how 

they can improve their grades and behavior, what their biggest obstacles are, what changes 

they could make during the rest of the school year, and what lessons they have learned for 

the next school year. In SPR’s observation of the program, students shared their reflections 

on their grades and behavior with the group, demonstrating strong trust in each other. 

The Rites of Passage staff is a major asset to the program. Engaging at-risk students 

requires that the students respect and trust the staff, and take their discussions to heart. 

The staff members, in turn, use this influence with the students to show them how bright 

their futures can be despite challenges they may be facing in high school. One staff 

member said: 

[We] can say that we went through the same challenges, we come from
 

the same place you come from, but this is what we’ve done with our 

lives. We’ve gone to school, we’ve gone to college. We’ve furthered our 

education and not stopped just because of our circumstances or our 

environment. That’s a pretty powerful tool because it gets them
 

thinking...All we want to do is turn that light bulb on. 

School Climate Challenges and Lessons Learned 

School staff members faced a range of challenges in implementing the climate strategies. Key 

challenges include gaining support for the programs, reacting to external factors, and overcoming 

logistical challenges. 

	 Climate staff and programs operate in an environment where rules are 

enforced inconsistently. Overall, a key element to improving climate in a school 

is that staff must enforce rules consistently across the board. This is often 

difficult for teachers, who then have to deal with students’ reactions to discipline, 

which can be disruptive. One teacher articulated this perspective: 

Technically cell phones and iPods are not allowed, but I don’t have the 

wherewithal to enforce this, because by asking a kid to give up his iPod, 

you lose 5 minutes of instructional time, and they hate you the rest of the 

class. I ask kids to put them away and they usually do. I don’t go toe and 

toe with [students about] that... 

While this approach makes it more difficult for others to enforce rules, it is also 

important for teachers to receive support in making rules and regulations 

consistent (see Lessons Learned). 

	 Outside factors that have a negative effect on climate can be difficult for 

schools to address. At least one school noted that closures of nearby schools 

created an influx of students to the school, many of whom have serious behavioral 

V-33 
 

issues. In addition, students transferring to a new school may feel the need to 

“make a name for themselves” and, as a result act out. Similarly, students 

transferring in from other neighborhood schools may create or revive gang or 

neighborhood rivalries, which then lead to more incidents. These students may 

slow or negate progress that schools have made in improving their environment. 

Schools have also learned a number of lessons about implementing effective school climate 

interventions. 

	 Improving climate requires a team approach and coordination between 

members of the school community. Climate staff members reported that when 

teachers and other adults in the building work together, incidents and conflicts 

diminish. This type of coordination works both ways; for example, climate staff 

can help teachers understand the types of issues students face and how best to 

respond to disruptive behavior. Conversely, teachers can help climate staff by 

implementing procedures to monitor and identify disruptive behavior. For 

instance, at Lincoln HS, the climate manager has instituted a system in which 

teachers fill out “alerts” on students who may have violated the dress code or 

come into class with a prohibited item. Rather than confront the student in class, 

which disrupts instruction and may upset the student, a teacher can “alert” the 

climate manager to the issue and that staff person can address it in a more private 

and productive manner outside of class. This approach allows teachers and staff 

to enforce rules consistently and present a united front to students around 

discipline. 

	 Investing time and resources in relationship-building with students helps 

prevent and resolve conflict in the school. MEES-funded climate staff reported 

that the strong relationships they had built with students helped address climate 

issues as they arose. For example, the climate manager at Bartram HS has 

developed strong relationships with many students and has even had students alert 

him to conflicts brewing among other students. This allows him to reach out and 

stop these conflicts before they escalate. In addition, staff with strong 

relationships throughout the school can tell when students are more likely to be 

disruptive. One Bartram HS climate staff member said: 

It all goes back to the relationship-building piece. We know what kind of 

day a kid is going to have in the morning. 

	 Creating opportunities for student leadership and ownership in climate 

interventions is a best practice. Schools implementing incentive and peer 

mediation programs have found that recognizing students and including them in 

developing school policy creates stronger buy-in to the programs. This is 

especially true for those students identified as potential leaders, such as peer 

mediators. These opportunities may also encourage other students to aspire to 

these positions, or give all students a sense of ownership in the school by seeing 

their peers in positions of leadership. 

V-34 
Moving forward, school staff will continue to implement climate strategies, with the hope that as 

the programs become more integrated into the fabric of the school, climate will continue to 

improve. As this continues, other key MEES strategies, such as educational and employment 

strategies, will in turn benefit from the improved environment. 

Summary of Findings 

Although the MEES schools still had components of their climate and mentoring programs to 

implement at the time of the third site visits, they had made promising starts in launching these 

programs. As described above, eight of the nine schools had already recruited mentees, peer 

mentors, and adult mentors and five schools had made mentor-mentee matches. Seven schools 

had held group mentoring or enrichment activities, and participants were looking forward to full 

implementation during the fall of 2010. Although barriers to recruitment and other logistical 

challenges had delayed implementation for all the schools, school and partner staff members 

continue to refine their programs to overcome these barriers. 

Overall, climate programs have been on a slower implementation schedule than other MEES 

strategies. As a result, schools still plan to implement programs, contract with partners, and 

recruit participants for climate programs in the 2010–2011 school year. To date, schools have 

begun to implement programs that encompass the entire school and target specific groups. These 

include hiring dedicated climate staff, developing ISS programs, recruiting and training peer 

mediators, and implementing school-wide incentive programs. As will be discussed in Chapter 

VII, five schools have started to see improvements in climate and reductions in violent incidents 

and suspensions. School staff members continue to develop climate programs and gain buy-in 

from students, teachers and administrators, as wide support for climate interventions is crucial to 

making them successful. 

V-35 

VI. EMPLOYMENT AND CASE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

All the MEES schools are implementing employment and case management strategies as part of 

the grant. Although these are two distinct strategies, they are closely linked in theory and 

practice. In particular, they share the goals of increasing students’ engagement in school and 

preventing dropouts. Employment interventions attempt to realize these goals by making 

academic learning relevant—by providing students with hands-on training, career exposure, and 

career planning they help students recognize that school is a path to success in later life. Case 

management interventions prevent dropouts and increase students’ engagement in school by 

providing personalized support to students who are vulnerable to dropout or who require 

wraparound services in order to be successful. Reflecting the close ties between these strategies, 

the seven SDP schools deliver employment and case management services in an integrated 

fashion from on-site employment and case management centers called Student Success Centers 

(SSCs). 

In this chapter, we describe the employment and case management interventions implemented in 

SY 2009–2010. Because the budgets for the case management and employment strategies 

overlap significantly at seven schools, the chapter begins with a discussion of the budget for both 

strategies combined. A detailed discussion of employment strategies follows, covering staffing, 

the level and types of services provided, and the challenges encountered during implementation. 

The latter part of the chapter is a parallel discussion of the case management strategy. The 

chapter concludes with a summary of findings related to the two strategies. 

Budget 

As noted in Chapter III, the budgets for employment and case management strategies overlap at 

the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) schools due to the integrated service design of the 

SSCs. Most schools are dedicating roughly one quarter of their grant funds to these two 

strategies together. Schools have generally contracted with Community-Based-Organizations 

(CBOs) to provide employment and case management services, and CBO partners have used the 

vast majority of these funds to hire staff. Schools and CBO partners are also using MEES grant 

VI-1 
funds for student wages, supplies, furniture, technology equipment, and facility modifications for 

SSCs. 

There are some variations in spending across schools. Bartram HS and Overbrook HS dedicated 

a smaller than average percentage of grant funds to employment and case management services 

(18 percent and 20 percent, respectively); however, this was because these two schools had preexisting SSCs and therefore did not have to dedicate as much funds to facility modifications, 

furniture, and technology equipment. Du Bois HS dedicated the largest percentage of its grant 

funds to employment, college access, and case management services (31 percent) because this 

school chose to hire a relatively large number of case management staff to provide individualized 

support and counseling to students. 

Overview of Employment Strategies 

Employment interventions seek to provide students with the knowledge and skills needed to 

obtain employment and/or enter post-secondary education, as well as to create opportunities for 

them to obtain hands-on training and work experience in occupations of interest. In this section, 

we provide an overview of the staffing and management of employment interventions, and then 

go into a detailed discussion of the SSC structure, because employment services for seven of the 

nine schools are provided from the SSCs. 

Staffing and Management 

All schools have developed contracts with CBO service providers to provide employment and 

college access services. Exhibit VI-1 highlights core CBO partners and staffing for each school. 

Exhibit VI-1: 

Grant-funded Contractors and Staffing for Employment Strategies 

School Contractor Contractor Staff School Staff 

Bartram HS Education Works 1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

Berkshire 

JSHS 

Berkshire Farms 9 Internship coordinators in 

fields such a horticulture, 

construction, etc. 

1 Workforce Coordinator 

1 Vocational Instructor 

1 Driver for internships 

Du Bois HS Baltimore Mayor’s Office 

of Employment 

Development (MOED) 

Futures Works 

2 Career Navigators 

1 Field Specialist 

3 Futures Advocates 

VI-2 
 

 

School Contractor Contractor Staff School Staff 

FitzSimons HS Nu Sigma Youth 

Services, Inc. 

1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

Germantown 

HS 

Communities In Schools 1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

Lincoln HS Philadelphia Academies, 

Inc. 

1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

Overbrook HS Communities In Schools 1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

University City 

HS 

UPENN - Netter Center 

for Community 

Partnerships 

1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

West 

Philadelphia 

HS 

UPENN - Netter Center 

for Community 

Partnerships 

1 Project Coordinator 

1 Post-secondary Specialist 

1 Job specialist 

1 Project assistant 

As shown in the exhibit, Du Bois HS contracted with the City of Baltimore Mayor’s Office of 

Employment Development (MOED) to operate the Career Connections program and the 

FUTURES Works program.1 The Career Connections program offers internship opportunities to 

eleventh- and twelfth-grade students and provides two career navigators who are co-located at 

the school. The career navigators provide job preparation workshops, one-on-one support, and 

content-driven internships to eleventh and twelfth graders. A field monitor is responsible for 

recruiting employers and monitoring student progress and employer quality. The MEES grant 

also supports three FUTURES advocates at Du Bois HS, who provide ninth-grade students with 

career development and exploration activities, as well as incentives to increase attendance and 

academic performance. 

Berkshire JSHS uses grant funds to support a full-time workforce development coordinator who 

manages all employment services, a full-time instructor for the Vocational Academy who 

teaches a class that focuses on exposing students to various occupations, and a full-time driver 

FUTURES Works is a dropout prevention program that provides daily comprehensive services to ninth-grade 

students. This program is housed in a large classroom at Du Bois HS, and is a collaborative effort between 

Baltimore City Schools, MOED, and Baltimore Rising. 

VI-3 

1 
 

 

 

 

who helps to transport students to and from internships and externships.2 To support the 

internship component, Berkshire JSHS has fee-for-service contracts with nine staff from a CBO 

partner (Berkshire Farms) who provide classroom and hands-on training to students in key 

internship areas (e.g., culinary arts, carpentry, horticulture, etc.), as well as supervision when 

students are at their internship placements. 

The SDP contracted with the Philadelphia Youth Network (PYN) to manage the SSCs. PYN, in 

turn, subcontracted with individual CBO service providers who are responsible for hiring 

employment and case management staff and providing services at each of the seven SDP 

schools. PYN acts as an intermediary between SDP and the CBO partners, providing contract 

management and oversight, technical assistance, capacity building, assistance with identifying 

and matching students for internships, and oversight for the SSC Leadership Academy.3 The 

CBO sub-contracted partners serve as the managing operators of the SSCs, coordinate with 

school staff and other partners in the school, hire SSC staff, and deliver core SSC services. The 

SSC has multiple staff members who provide employment interventions; their roles are defined 

further below. 

	 Project coordinators manage SSC operations. They supervise staff and student 

interns, coordinate SSC programs, oversee data collection and management, build 

partnerships with community organizations, and establish relationships with 

school leaders, teachers, support staff, students, and parents. 

	 Career development specialists coordinate school-wide employment-related 

programs for students, integrate work readiness skills training into classrooms
 

(e.g., resume development, interviewing skills, etc.), and connect students to 

summer and year-round employment and internship opportunities. 

	 Post-secondary specialists work with school staff and university partners to
 

manage college preparation activities, such as goal mapping, college tours, and 

college entrance assistance. 

	 Project assistants help the SSC team by helping to organize SSC activities and 

performing data collection and data entry. Project assistant positions, in most 

cases, are part-time. 

2	 In SY 2010–2011, due to budget cuts at Berkshire JSHS, the vocational instructor position will no longer exist, 

and the workforce development coordinator will teach all Vocational Academy classes. 

3	 The SSC Leadership Academy brings together three to five selected student leaders from each school to 

participate in a year-round citywide leadership program. These students are responsible for supporting and 

involving students at their schools in the daily activities of the SSC, participating in peer mediation, and 

organizing at least two annual service-learning initiatives. PYN oversees this component. 

VI-4 
 

 

In addition to these staff members, a few schools house additional grant-funded and non-grantfunded staff members within the SSC. All SDP schools have grant-funded social workers who 

work from the SSC as case managers. Both Germantown HS and West Philadelphia HS house 

their mentor coordinators within the SSC, while Germantown, Lincoln, Overbrook, and West 

Philadelphia High Schools house other non-grant funded staff (i.e., University of Pennsylvania 

college counselor, Gear-up Counselor) at their SSCs. 

Student Success Centers 

The SSC has become the hub in the building... It is a center for study 

activity. 

- School Leader, Overbrook HS 

The seven SDP schools are implementing school-based employment and case management 

centers called Student Success Centers (SSCs). Although the SSCs are integral to both of the 

strategies discussed in this chapter, they are most important in carrying out the employment 

strategy and so are discussed in greatest detail here. Three of the schools (Lincoln HS, 

Germantown HS, and FitzSimons HS) used grant funds to develop entirely new SSCs, while the 

remaining four schools used the grant to expand already-existing centers. 

SSCs are located in a dedicated space within each school and are generally open between 7:30 

am and 4:30 pm. Students can visit the centers on their own before school, during lunch periods, 

and after school. To prevent students from visiting SSCs during class periods without 

permission, SSCs require students to present a pass from their teacher or a school leader. For 

instance, at Bartram HS, SSC staff developed green hall passes that they distribute to school 

staff, who then distribute them to students who need to use the SSC during class time to attend 

an event or activity (e.g., a college workshop or speaker). 

Each SSC is equipped with computer workstations, furniture, whiteboards, and other high-end 

technology and resources. One school leader described the SSC as a “one-stop shop where 

students can receive career readiness and life skills training, college preparation support and 

academic tutoring, counseling, and community referrals.” Key goals and principles of the SSC 

model include: keeping students on-track for graduation and college; building connections with 

post-secondary institutions; connecting academics, college, and career success through 

contextual learning opportunities; and conveying “college knowledge.”4 

The Philadelphia Youth Network on behalf of the School District of Philadelphia, “Request for Proposals: 

Student Success Centers.” 

VI-5 

4 
SSC staff members aim to provide general information and support to the entire school, while 

also working more intensively with a subset of students. As displayed in Exhibit VI-2, each 

school served at least 50 percent of its school population through the SSC between January 1, 

2010 and June 30, 2010. Two schools, Germantown HS and Overbrook HS, served at least 80 

percent of their students during this time period. This is a notable accomplishment given that 

most SSCs only operated for half a year. 

Exhibit VI-2: 

Percent of School Population Receiving SSC Services 

January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010 

Overbrook HS has been successful in reaching a large percentage of their its population in part 

because its SSC existed prior to the grant. Students at Overbrook HS were already aware of and 

bought into the SSC model, and school leaders already knew how to effectively draw on SSC 

services. In addition, the SSC provider, Communities in Schools (CIS), was already co-located 

and providing services to students prior to the grant, which allowed them to build off existing 

relationships with school leaders and teachers. The SSC project coordinator stated: 

Overbrook already had an existing SSC so there wasn’t a lot for us to do. 

It already had buy-in from the principal and assistant principal.... The 

previous SSC paved the way for us working in the school.... [The 

principal] knows what she wants out of the SSC, and we help with that. 

While Germantown HS was not operating an SSC prior to the grant, it also has been successful 

in reaching a large percentage of its school population through the SSC. The SSC at 

VI-6 
Germantown HS is new but because it is also operated by CIS, staff were able to hit the ground 

running and leverage learning from other schools such as Overbrook HS. According to SSC 

staff members at Germantown HS, they also made a special effort to reach out to the whole 

school. Key SSC staff, including the post-secondary specialist, career development specialist, 

and social worker, formed relationships with existing staff immediately and also did extensive 

outreach to students by presenting in all the core English classes. 

University City HS and West Philadelphia HS served the lowest percentages of students through 

their SSCs. The SSCs at these schools are both operated by the Netter Center at the University 

of Pennsylvania, and this contractor focused less on broad outreach to students and more on 

providing intensive support for particular students. For instance, at West Philadelphia HS, the 

post-secondary specialist targets twelfth graders for intensive case management services. 

Similarly, most of University City HS’s SSC activities have focused on working with eleventh 

and twelfth graders to provide them with counseling and to get them into school-year internships. 

Overall, students spoke very positively of the SSCs at their schools. For instance, students at 

Bartram HS—who rarely used their school’s SSC prior to the 2009–2010 school year because 

the “environment wasn’t welcoming”—said that this school year, students have begun to access 

services and support from the SSC because they feel that there are more ways to be engaged in 

activities, as opposed to “just coming and sitting at the computer.” Two eleventh-grade students 

from Bartram HS and West Philadelphia HS commented about how their SSCs had changed: 

[Last year, the SSC] was under different people. Every year, there have 

been different people at the SSC. This year was the best. 

It’s [the SSC] grown over the years. Before it was just small. Over the 

years, it got bigger. They expanded it, and there are more things to do. 

Three Employment Strategies 

The MEES schools have implemented three core employment strategies: supporting career 

development, placing students into internships, and promoting college access. Exhibit VI-3 

indicates the target groups for each of these three strategies. 

VI-7 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit VI-3: 

Target Grade Levels for Employment Interventions 

Supporting Career 

Development 

Placing Students 

into Internships 

Promoting College 

Access 

9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 9 10 11 12 

Bartram HS X X X X X X X X 

Berkshire JSHS X X X X X X X X 

Du Bois HS X X X X 

FitzSimons HS X X X X X X X X X X X 

Germantown HS X X X X X X X X 

Lincoln HS X X X X X X X X 

Overbrook HS X X X X X X X X 

University City HS X X X X X X X X X 

West Philadelphia HS X X X X X X X X X X 

An examination of Exhibit VI-3 reveals that in every school except Du Bois HS, students in 

every grade are targeted for at least one of the employment strategies. The general pattern, 

however, is for all students to be targeted for career development activities, while eleventh- and 

twelfth-grade students alone are targeted for internships and college access activities. This 

pattern is based on the rationale that students in the latter grades are more in need of the activities 

focused on what occurs immediately after high school graduation. 

Internships are generally reserved for eleventh- and twelfth-grade students who are of legal 

working age, who are making satisfactory academic progress, and who have flexible schedules 

that allow them to work during the school day. Berkshire JSHS is an exception in this case, 

however, because all students at Berkshire JSHS have the opportunity to participate in high 

quality, on-campus internships. 

College access interventions are primarily designed for eleventh and twelfth graders, but several 

schools targeted younger students in order to get them thinking ahead about college. For 

instance, in the first year of grant implementation, FitzSimons HS and West Philadelphia HS 

staff explicitly targeted ninth-grade students for college access services, as a way to excite them 

about potential post-secondary options, which they hope will encourage student retention and 

post-secondary goal development. 

To recruit students for employment interventions, school and CBO staff members post flyers 

throughout school buildings, conduct classroom presentations, and announce events and 

VI-8 
 

 

programs over the schools’ public address systems. They also hold school-wide and gradespecific assemblies where they provide students with an overview of the services available and 

communicate information that is essential to students in specific grades. At Berkshire JSHS, the 

workforce development coordinator invites local employers to the school to provide students 

with information about available externship opportunities. Schools are also using technology, 

including social networking sites, to recruit students. For instance, a SSC staff member at 

Bartram HS sends emails to students and has set up a Facebook page to provide students 

information about upcoming events and activities. 

Word-of-mouth has also been an effective recruitment strategy for several schools. For instance, 

Overbrook HS has organized a “Street Team” of SSC student interns. These students recruit 

their peers for specific programs and events by passing out flyers during passing and lunch 

periods. CBO staff also mentioned the importance of strategically reaching out to teachers, by 

approaching teachers to offer support, attending common planning time, and encouraging 

teachers to refer students for services. Overall, staff members report that recruiting students for 

employment interventions has not been a challenge. According to a number of school and 

community-based staff, students generally seek out interventions on their own because they are 

interested in gaining employment and/or entering post-secondary education. 

Supporting Career Development 

All schools are supporting career development in order to make students aware of the 

educational requirements of various careers and provide students with sufficient job readiness 

training. To support career development, schools sponsored job shadow days, provided 

individual career advising, and organized and facilitated job preparation workshops. 

Exhibit VI-4 highlights the percent of all students receiving any type of career development 

service at SDP schools, as reported by PYN.5

 As illustrated in the exhibit, over 60 percent of 

students at FitzSimons HS (63 percent) and Overbrook HS (69 percent) received career 

development and exploration services, while fewer than 30 percent of students at Lincoln HS (15 

percent) and West Philadelphia HS (25 percent) received these services. 

These data were not available for Du Bois HS or Berkshire JSHS. 

VI-9 

5 
Exhibit VI-4: 

Percent of School Population Receiving Career Development Services 

January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010 

Differences in the percentages of students reached by schools correspond to differences in 

emphasis and scale. Schools that reached a high percentage of the school population, like 

Overbrook HS, FitzSimons HS, and Germantown HS, conducted more large-scale career events 

than did schools like Lincoln HS and West Philadelphia HS, which focused more on providing 

individual advising and smaller job preparation workshops. In schools that reached a higher 

percentage of students, SSC staff members tended to have stronger and more trusting 

relationships with teachers and school staff, which provided an opportunity for SSC staff 

members to reach out to students and engage them in SSC activities. 

Career Days and Job Shadowing Activities 

Each of the seven SDP schools sponsors a combination of career and job shadow days in order to 

raise students’ understanding of different types of careers. 

Career days are school-wide events where professionals in various career paths visit the school to 

speak to students. Four SDP schools sponsored large career fairs, where professionals rotated 

among classrooms conducting concurrent workshops and presentations. At Overbrook HS, for 

instance, all students spent an entire day rotating between different career-focused workshops. 

To recruit professionals for the event, school and CBO staff members relied heavily on their 

personal networks, contacted businesses directly, and reached out to alumni of their school. 

VI-10 
 

 

 

 

While most schools were able to secure 10 to 30 professionals from a range of fields (e.g., 

construction, law, business, information technology) for their career days, Overbrook HS, which 

has implemented this event for the past seven years, was able to secure 111 professionals. 

Job shadowing activities provide students with an opportunity to spend time with and observe a 

seasoned career professional in his or her work setting. Four SDP schools selected a group of 

ninth graders to participate in a citywide job shadow day sponsored by the SDP and PYN. 

Before participating in this activity, students went through an orientation process that covered 

resume writing, interviewing techniques, training in twenty-first century skills, and workplace 

etiquette. Students then spent a full day at one of three sites selected by PYN (Environmental 

Protection Agency, Fire Department, and Naval Inventory Control Point), shadowing 

professionals in their work environments. Students navigated public transportation to get to the 

worksites, participated in question-and-answer sessions with professionals, and then returned to 

their schools, where they engaged in group discussions with their peers about what they did and 

did not like about each career. 

Overall, students, professionals, and school and CBO staff from these schools spoke positively of 

career day and job shadowing activities. Students appreciated the opportunity to learn about 

various careers, while professionals felt good about giving back to their community. School and 

CBO staff said that they planned to use the feedback they receive from students and 

professionals to improve the events each year. 

Individual Advising 

All of the MEES schools provide individual one-on-one career advising, which consists of 

offering career interest and skills assessments and helping students develop individual career 

plans. The services offered at Bartram HS are a particularly good example of the types of 

individual advising services offered by the schools. At Bartram HS, the career development 

specialist conducts career inventory and career interest assessments during the first meeting with 

a student. If the student already knows what career he or she is interested in pursuing, the career 

development specialist conducts a career inventory assessment to determine where the student is 

in terms of career readiness. However, if the student does not know what career he or she wants 

to pursue, the career development specialist will use Career Voyages6

 to help the student explore 

different careers. Following the career assessment, Bartram HS’s career development specialist 

Career Voyages, an online system designed by the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of 

Education, provides information on high growth, in-demand occupations, along with the skills and education 

needed to attain those jobs. 

VI-11 

6 
works with each student to develop a “Student Success Plan.” These plans include the student’s 

goals and identify key career activities he or she must complete throughout high school. These 

activities include developing a resume, completing a job shadow, registering for career and 

technical education (CTE) courses or electives, volunteering at an organization, and obtaining a 

summer job or internship. 

Overall, employment staff members at each school have found working with students one-onone to be very valuable. Some staff members use career development plans to ensure that 

students are developing the appropriate career readiness skills and to monitor each student’s 

career development progress from year to year. In addition, many of these staff members feel 

that by working with students individually, they are able to better engage them and ensure that 

they understand the information provided. 

Job Preparation Workshops 

All nine MEES schools offered job preparation workshops in the first year of grant 

implementation. Key staff members, such as career development specialists in Philadelphia, 

career navigators at Du Bois HS, and the workforce development coordinator at Berkshire JSHS, 

organize and facilitate job preparation workshops. The aim of job preparation workshops is to 

build students’ work-ready skills, with the goal of training students in the skills they need to 

complete job applications and conduct job searches; develop a resume and practice interview 

skills; learn how to dress properly for an interview; communicate effectively with job 

supervisors and understand workplace etiquette; and develop and manage personal budgets, 

including how to open a bank account. 

The workshops are generally facilitated on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, or as needed, given the 

skills, abilities, and interests of the students. In some cases, staff members facilitate these 

workshops during lunch periods, and before and after school. In other cases the classes occur 

during students’ advisory periods as one-time classroom presentations. For example, at West 

Philadelphia HS, the career development specialist holds resume and interview skills workshops 

for tenth-, eleventh-, and twelfth-grade students three days a week. Other workshop topics at 

West Philadelphia HS include networking, career exploration, and dress for success. 

In most cases, students are required to complete a job preparation workshop prior to participating 

in an internship. For instance, at University City HS, students interested in obtaining an 

internship must first participate in an 8- to 12-hour work readiness training program. This 

training includes interview skills training, accountability and time management workshops, 

resume development, and job application assistance. Students said that the job preparation 

workshops were very helpful in preparing them for employment. One student intern at 

VI-12 
 

University City HS said that the job preparation workshops, particularly the mock interviews and 

interview skills training, reduced her nervousness as she prepared for a job interview. She 

stated: 

I was someone who really needed those techniques because I get nervous 

around a lot of people...to me, the workshops helped me be more open. 

During the interview...that pressure got me nervous again, but I went over 

the steps that we learned and I took a couple of breaths and that got me 

comfortable again. 

Berkshire JSHS’s Vocational Academy 

At Berkshire JSHS, students interested in having an internship or externship are required to 

first participate in the classroom-based Vocational Academy. This Academy includes a 

workforce development course and a life-skills course that introduces students to various 

occupations and develops their job preparedness skills. The courses combined are 10 weeks 

long. Grant-funded workforce staff members (i.e., workforce development lead and 

vocational instructor) teach these courses. 

The workforce development course introduces students to various occupations and trades, 

including horticulture, culinary arts, carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and automotive repair. 

The class is a combination of didactic teaching and hands-on activities. For instance, at the 

time of the spring 2010 site visit, students were learning about landscaping and gardening. 

The instructor used PowerPoint to present key concepts and show the types of careers 

individuals can have within landscaping and gardening. Afterward, at the school’s farm and 

construction shop, the teacher modeled how landscapers draw garden designs with draft 

paper and pencils, and then students had a chance to do it themselves. 

The second course, life skills, focuses on employment readiness skills related to resume 

development, interviewing, and workplace etiquette. Students participate in discussions on 

decision-making, and learn essential life skills such as opening and maintaining a bank 

account. Because all students at Berkshire JSHS have some sort of criminal history, the life 

skills instructor also teaches them how to frame their criminal convictions during a job 

interview. 

In SY 2008–2009, 28 percent of Berkshire JSHS students received “workforce development 

skills” services and 29 percent participated in the pre-internship program. 

Intensity of Career Development Interventions 

For SDP schools, the evaluation examined the relative intensity of the career development 

interventions provided by schools by analyzing SSC participation data provided by PYN. 

Exhibit IV-5 shows the intensity of different types of services provided by each school by 

graphing the number of times a service was provided per 100 students served by the SSC at that 

VI-13 
 

 

 

 

school.7 The graph tells us, for instance, that Bartram HS provided 193.6 instances of individual 

advising for every 100 students served by the SSC. Thus, on average, every student served by 

the SSC received almost two instances of individual career advising. It is important to note that 

this provides only a very rough estimate of intensity. In the case of Bartram, for instance, it is 

likely that a smaller group of students actually received individual career advising services, 

though this is not something that we can determine from the data available. (For example, 50 

students may have received an average of four instances of individual advising each.) 

Exhibit VI-5: 

Instances of Career Development Interventions Per 100 Students Served by SSC 

The following are findings related to the intensity of career development interventions: 

	 Four of the seven schools provided more instances of individual advising per 

100 students than they did career/job shadows and job preparation 

workshops. Bartram HS, FitzSimons HS, and Germantown HS provided the 

most instances of individual advising per 100 students, while Overbrook HS 

provided the least. The high number of instances per 100 students served 

We focus on “instances” of participation rather than the total number of students served for a particular service 

because the numbers provided on PYN’s End of Year Report are duplicative. That is, schools report the total 

number of times a service is delivered for every month from January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010, even if the 

same student receives that service multiple times. Because an individual student can receive multiple services, 

the instances of a given service may exceed the total number of unduplicated participants served. The “per-100 

participant instances of service” is calculated by summing the total instances of service, dividing it by the 

“unduplicated number of youth served,” and multiplying it by 100. 

VI-14 

7 
indicates that some students received multiple instances of individual advising at 

these schools and that these schools prioritized individual advising over other 

types of services. As described in the description of individual advising, the job 

specialist at Bartram HS worked intensively with individual students over time to 

do a career inventory assessment and develop a student success plan. 

	 Schools that had relatively high instances of career and job shadow days 

each sponsored large career days. Four schools, FitzSimons HS, Germantown 

HS, Overbrook HS, and West Philadelphia HS, had at least 60 instances of career 

and job shadow day services per 100 students served. These four schools 

sponsored large career days, which reach a high percentage of the student 

population. 

	 Overbrook HS focused more on breadth and reach of services than on
 

intensity of services. Overbrook HS was able to reach a very large proportion of 

its student body through its large career day, but most of its students experienced 

a lower intensity of service than students at schools like Bartram HS or 

FitzSimons HS, which focused on individual advising. 

	 Those schools that provided the most instances of job preparation workshops 

often went into classrooms in order to deliver these workshops at different 

grade levels. Bartram HS, Germantown HS, University City HS, and West 

Philadelphia HS provided the most instances of job preparation workshops per 

100 students served—in some cases, more than double that of the other schools. 

Staff members at these schools had strong relationships with teachers and,
 

because of this were able to deliver job preparation workshops during students’ 

advisory periods or during English classes as a one-time events. Lincoln High 

school had the lowest levels of job preparation workshops, and to some degree 

this was due to challenges that SSC staff had in collaborating with teachers and 

accessing classrooms. 

Placing Students in Internships 

In keeping with the guidelines set forth in the MEES grant solicitation, all nine schools are 

targeting eleventh and twelfth graders for internships. Nearly all schools have developed criteria 

to identify appropriate students for internship opportunities, with a priority on finding internships 

for eleventh- and twelfth-grade students who are “work ready” and who have a track record of 

positive behavior and academic performance. Berkshire JSHS is the only school where 

internships are available for any student who expresses interest. Exhibit VI-6 shows the percent 

of all students at each school who were placed into an internship in SY 2009–2010. 

VI-15 
 

 

 

Exhibit VI-6: 

Percent of School Population Participating in an Internship 

(SY 2009–2010) 

As illustrated in Exhibit VI-6, Du Bois HS has by far the highest percentage of students who 

completed an internship in SY 2009–2010 (20 percent). One reason that Du Bois HS has been so 

successful at placing students into internships is that it has a strong workforce partner in the 

Baltimore Mayor’s Office of Employment Development (MOED), which operated the Career 

Connections program. The Career Connections program aimed to provide internships to almost 

all eleventh graders and twelfth graders who were on track for graduation. Grant-funded career 

navigators and a field monitor identified more than 52 employers or “internship site partners” to 

provide content-driven internships that reinforce classroom learning. Teachers actively referred 

students to the program, and staff from the Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID)8 

program allowed career navigators to conduct presentations for students during class time. The 

Career Connections program enrolled 76 twelfth graders and 80 eleventh graders in SY 2009– 

2010, and of these enrolled students, 88 percent of twelfth graders and 79 percent of eleventh 

graders completed an internship. Internship sites include schools, newspapers, hospitals, and 

nonprofit organizations. 

The AVID program is ideally a four-year program for students who have the potential to succeed in college prep 

courses. Upon acceptance into AVID, students must enroll in college prep courses, which will result in fulfilling 

entry requirements for most state colleges and universities. AVID is an elective class that meets during the 

regular school day. 

VI-16 

8 
 

 

 

 

Berkshire JSHS enrolled its students in internships in areas such as carpentry, horticulture and 

farming, maintenance, business, and culinary arts. When students go through their original 

intake process Berkshire JSHS, they learn about the available internships and, if they desire, can 

use their “flex period” to participate. In this sense, participation in the internship program is very 

student-driven. Students must complete the work development class and a life skills class before 

working at an internship. Because these internships are on campus, the workforce development 

coordinator works closely with the internship staff to place students in internship positions, and 

all positions are related to the functioning of the school or the residential campus. Carpentry 

interns work on building residential cottages and units at the school, and through that process 

learn basic construction skills. Maintenance interns clean windows and make repairs around the 

school, while horticulture and farming interns maintain the plants and care for animals at the 

school farm. Students’ work ranges from five to 20 hours per week, and internship placements 

last from six to 24 weeks. For the 2009–2010 school year, 64 students participated in on-campus 

internships.9 

In addition to on-campus internships, Berkshire JSHS aims to provide students who have 

completed these internships with off-campus work experience opportunities called externships. 

Students who are placed into externships work one to two times a week at restaurants and retail 

clothing stores, getting paid minimum wage. At the time of the third visit, 17 students had 

participated in this program. 

SDP schools varied in the percentage of students who enrolled in internships, from a high of nine 

percent at Germantown HS to a low of one percent at Lincoln HS. In Philadelphia, PYN draws 

on its large network of employers to develop a pool of internships for students at the MEES 

schools and other high schools throughout Philadelphia. Job specialists from the SSC work with 

career academy principals to identify youth who meet certain criteria (e.g., involving grades, 

behavior, and attendance) to participate in paid internships. Students then apply for the 

internship through an online application with PYN. PYN arranges interviews between the 

employers and students, completes student background checks, and collects employment 

information (e.g., W-4 forms, selective service registry verification, etc.) from students. Interns 

work for approximately six weeks, at around ten hours a week, in locations such as hospitals, law 

offices, the office of veteran’s affairs, etc. 

Note: This number was obtained during the third round site visit and is higher than that reported in Berkshire 

JSHS’s June 2010 MIS quarterly report. Sixty-four students is more than eight percent of Berkshire JSHS’s 

population, and it may be that Berkshire JSHS was reporting only “externships” as internships in their MIS 

report. 

VI-17 

9 
 

SSC programs that were more successful at placing students into internships did not rely 

exclusively on PYN to identify internships but also developed their own relationships with 

employers. Germantown HS, for example, had a pre-existing relationship with two local 

hospitals, which placed some students from the schools’ health academy into internships. The 

SSC program at Lincoln HS, which placed the lowest percentage of students into internships, 

lacked strong relationships with local employers and also could not access most of the PYN 

internships. Lincoln HS is located on the far end of northeast Philadelphia and students did not 

have good transportation options to get to the PYN internship locations, most of which are in 

downtown Philadelphia. 

Student interns are generally paid an average of $7.25 an hour, which is the minimum wage. In 

most cases, this wage is subsidized with grant funds. At Du Bois HS, eleventh-grade studentinterns receive credit towards graduation instead of an hourly wage, while twelfth-grade students 

are paid minimum wage. At Berkshire JSHS, the wages students earn are deposited into 

accounts kept for each student, and students have access to these funds only after they are 

discharged. 

Overall, students look forward to internships, because it is an opportunity for them to gain work 

experience and make money. During interviews, students said that participating in an internship 

or “real job” makes them more responsible and mature. The following are illustrative quotes 

from student interns at Bartram HS and University City HS, respectively. 

[My internship] makes me mature because now I know the feeling of 

working on my own and getting my own money. I am not dependent on my 

mom’s handouts all the time. 

The best part [about my internship] is how they treat me like a 

businesswoman, like I’m really working for this company. I like how I 

have my space, my own desk, my own computer.... It’s a grown-up 

experience. I feel older, more mature. 

Promoting College Access 

I was always thinking about getting a degree. A college education is 

important, but when [I moved to the United States], I was confused 

because I didn’t know where the money [to pay for college] would come 

from, but the Student Success Center helped me. They said you can get 

financial aid and get money to help you go to school, and they actually 

help you find different colleges that are good for you. So they helped push 

me to want to go to college. 

- Twelfth Grade Student, West 

Philadelphia HS 

VI-18 
Only the seven SDP schools indicate that promoting college access is a core grant-funded 

employment strategy. In order to promote college access, SDP schools provided college 

exposure activities, college application assistance, and financial aid counseling. In most cases, 

the post-secondary specialist provides these services. As discussed earlier in this chapter, these 

activities generally target eleventh and twelfth graders, in an effort to support their immediate 

post-secondary plans, but are also made available to ninth and tenth graders. 

Exhibit VI-7: 

Percent of School Population Receiving College Access Services 

January 1, 2010 through June 30, 2010 

As illustrated in Exhibit VI-7, five of the SDP schools are engaging at least 25 percent of their 

school populations in interventions to promote college access. Germantown HS reached the 

highest proportion of its student body with college access services, in part because school staff 

members conducted workshops in student classrooms. University City HS’s status as a 

Renaissance school may have reduced the percentage of students that SSC staff members were 

able to reach in the first year of the grant. The following are details on each type of college 

access intervention funded by the grant. 

	 College Exposure. College exposure activities include holding college fairs, 

organizing college visits, and hosting speakers from different colleges. During a 

college fair, panels of representatives and students from various colleges and 

universities present to students about the academic and social characteristics of 

the school, as well as details related to entrance requirements and tuition. The 

college fair hosted by Lincoln HS in SY 2009–2010 (its first) was attended by 

VI-19 
over 500 students, and included representatives from over 40 colleges, 

universities, and technical schools. All seven schools organized college visits, 

where students toured local colleges and universities. 

	 College Application Assistance. College application assistance includes 

working one-on-one with students to help them fill out college applications, 

register for the SAT/ACT, and develop college and scholarship essays. In 

addition, SSC staff assist with college applications by organizing workshops that 

help prepare students for the SAT and ACT and write personal statements. At 

Bartram HS, for instance, the post-secondary specialist’s goal has been to “get 

students to think about what’s going to happen after they graduate” and every 

eleventh-grade student is required to decide on a post-secondary major or 

vocational interest and identify related post-secondary institutions or vocational 

schools. Twelfth-grade students are required to participate in SAT/ACT 

preparation and register for the SAT/ACT test. 

	 Financial Aid Counseling. Financial aid counseling includes directly assisting 

students with completing the Federal Application for Financial Student Aid 

(FAFSA), registering for the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency 

(PHEAA) for general financial assistance, and applying for scholarships. Almost 

all of the schools conduct workshops on topics such as “paying for college” and 

“filling out the FAFSA,” but the post-secondary education specialist at West 

Philadelphia HS argued that the one-on-one assistance is more valuable for 

students than are the workshops. This staff person said, “I think it’s really helpful 

to touch base with individual students to tell them, ‘this is what you need to do, 

and why you need to do it.’ You get better responses from them when you meet 

with them individually.” Students who received financial aid counseling were 

appreciative of the support they received from the SSC. For example, one student 

from West Philadelphia HS expressed the following: 

To be honest, when I had to do my financial aid, I was a bit confused, and 

the [post-secondary specialist] helped me complete my financial aid. 

Most of us have no idea how to go about doing financial aid, and they 

helped us get money. If this [center] were not here, most of us would be 

going to [college] without knowing where the money [to pay for it] would 

come from. 

For SDP schools, the evaluation was able to analyze participation data to arrive at a measure of 

the relative intensity of the college access interventions provided by each school. Exhibit IV-8 

illustrates the relative intensity of different types of services provided by each school by 

graphing the number of times a service was provided per 100 students served by the SSC at that 

VI-20 
 

 

school.10 The graph tells us, for instance, that Germantown HS provided 206 instances of college 

application assistance for every 100 students served by the SSC, an average of over two 

instances per student served. It is important to note that this provides only a very rough estimate 

of the intensity of services that the “average student” received. It is likely that a small group of 

Germantown HS students received a fairly intensive level of service (i.e. meeting with the 

postsecondary specialist numerous times to prepare college application), whereas other students 

received a much lighter level of service (i.e., coming to the SSC to register for the SAT/ACT). 

Exhibit VI-8: 

Instances of College Access Services Provided Per 100 Students Served by SSC 

Key findings related to the intensity of college access interventions include the following: 

	 Three schools provided numerous instances of college application assistance 

to students, at rate almost double that of other schools. Germantown HS, 

Bartram HS, and Overbrook HS provided a high number of instances of college 

application assistance. These schools were successful because they used a 

10	 As described in the career development section, the numbers provided on PYN’s End of Year Report are 

duplicative. That is, schools report the total number of times a service is delivered for every month from January 

1, 2010 through June 30, 2010, even if the same student receives that service multiple times. Because an 

individual student can receive multiple services, the instances of a given service may exceed the total number of 

unduplicated participants served. The “per-100 participant instances of service” is calculated by summing the 

total instances of service, dividing it by the “unduplicated number of youth served,” and multiplying it by 100. 

VI-21 
combination of one-on-one counseling and workshops and group activities. For 

instance, Germantown HS held a series of college entrance workshops for 

eleventh- and twelfth-grade students on topics such as “college applications” and 

“college writing 101.” 

	 West Philadelphia HS placed a strong emphasis on financial aid counseling, 

providing twice as many instances per student served as most of the other 

schools. The post-secondary specialist at West Philadelphia HS made a concerted 

effort to work intensively with high school junior and seniors, identifying 200 

students who met with her numerous times over the course of the spring 2010 

semester. This staff member mentioned that while the approach of meeting with 

so many students one-on-one has been slow and tedious, it has been beneficial for 

the students. 

	 With the exception of Overbrook HS, schools provided relatively low levels of 

college exposure activities. Overbrook HS provided an average of almost 113 

instances of college exposure per student served because it placed a very large 

emphasis on college tours and hosted weekly presentations from speakers from 

colleges and universities. At the time of the spring 2010 site visit, Overbrook HS 

had hosted five college tours, with 40 students on average attending each tour. 

Lincoln had the second largest number of instances per student served, largely 

due to a very successful college fair that the SSC hosted in the spring of 2010. 

Schools such as Bartram HS, University City HS, and West Philadelphia HS did 

not have the strong of ties with post-secondary institutions needed to plan this 

many such activities in SY 2009–2010, but plan to provide more such 

opportunities next year. 

Challenges in Implementing Employment Strategies 

Overall, MEES schools have been very successful at launching employment strategies, and are 

making progress towards their goals of supporting career development, placing students into 

internships, and promoting college access. The SSCs in the Philadelphia schools are described 

by students and school staff members as “safe spaces” within the schools that help students feel 

more positive about the opportunities and supports available at their schools. However, schools 

did face some challenges in the first year of grant implementation: 

	 The delivery of SSC equipment, furniture, and technology was delayed, 

which slowed implementation. According to a number of SSC staff members, 

there were long delays in getting computers and infrastructure, such as phone 

lines and furniture. Although SSC equipment and furniture was ordered as early 

as January 2010, some schools did not receive items until as late as May 2010. 

To ensure students received services, some CBO providers used their 

organizations’ equipment or borrowed from the school or other partners until their 

ordered equipment arrived. 

	 Some SDP schools have faced challenges fully integrating SSC staff members 

into the schools. One barrier to integrating SSC staff members has been that 

VI-22 
some school leaders and teachers are not aware of or have not bought into the 

SSC model. For instance, some SSC staff members feel that teachers view the 

SSC as a place where students can hang out when they cut class. Even though 

school leaders implemented policies dictating when students can be in the SSC, 

the negative perception of the SSC remains a challenge at a few schools. 

	 For seven of the nine schools, internships have been in limited supply. In 

Philadelphia, PYN is tasked with finding work opportunities for all eligible 

students. However, according to SSC staff members, PYN did not have enough 

internship slots to provide all students with internships. In addition, many of the 

available internships were located downtown, far from many students’ homes. 

SSC staff members therefore worked to foster connections with local businesses 

and organizations to place the remaining students. Berkshire JSHS also faced 

challenges in placing students into off-campus externships. Students’ irregular 

schedules have resulted in irregular work hours, and some employers are not 

happy with this. 

Overview of Case Management Strategies 

It is hard for students to experience success if they do not deal with their 

emotional side. 

- SSC Project Coordinator, Bartram HS 

Across the nine schools, many students face emotional, behavioral, and social struggles that 

hinder their ability to succeed. In order to address individual students’ specific needs, improve 

social service linkages, and centralize school-based supportive services, MEES schools have 

instituted case management services. In this section, we provide an overview of the staff that 

MEES schools have hired to provide case management as well as the target populations for case 

management interventions. 

Staffing and Management 

Case management staff members are responsible for conducting needs assessments of students, 

developing and implementing service plans, making referrals, and providing behavioral support 

and crisis management to students. In most cases, case management staff persons have 

professional degrees and/or specialized certificates or credentials that enable them to provide 

intensive interventions. Exhibit VI-9 shows the various case management positions that each 

school hired with grant funds. 

VI-23 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit VI-9: 

Case Management Positions 

Case Management Positions 

SDP Schools1  Social Worker 

 Post-Secondary Specialist 

 Career Development Specialist 

Berkshire JSHS  Behavior Management Specialist2

 (3) 

 Adventure-Based Counselor (2) 

Du Bois HS  FUTURES Advocate (3) 

 Transition Evening School Guidance 

Counselor 

 Substance Abuse Counselor 

 Mental Health Clinician 

 Anger Management Counselor 

1 West Philadelphia HS is also supporting a Social Work Intern with grant 

funds, and Germantown HS plans to hire a drug and alcohol counselor with 

grant funds. 

2 Berkshire JSHS has five Behavior Management Specialists, but only three 

positions are supported with grant funds. 

As displayed Exhibit VI-9, all nine schools are supporting at least three case management 

positions to provide individualized support to at-risk students. Of the MEES schools, Du Bois 

HS has invested most heavily in case management; it has hired seven full-time case management 

staff persons. At Du Bois HS, key case management and support services are provided to ninthgrade students through FUTURES Works. Serving as “mediators” between students and their 

families and schools, FUTURES advocates monitor students’ attendance, provide tutoring, 

implement life skills training and workshops, meet with parents, and connect students to school 

and community-based programs and services. The Transitional Evening School (TES) guidance 

counselor provides individualized academic support and weekly one-on-one and group 

counseling to students in the TES program.11 In addition to these program-specific staff, Du Bois 

has hired a substance abuse counselor, a mental health clinician, and an anger management 

specialist to provide one-on-one and group counseling to students using a combination of 

Motivational Enhancement Therapy (MET) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).12 

11 TES is an overage, under-credit program for students 16 or over who are repeat ninth graders. 

12 MET seeks to evoke from clients their own motivation for change and to consolidate a personal decision and 

plan for change. The approach is largely client-centered, although planned and directed. CBT is a 

psychotherapeutic approach that aims to solve problems concerning dysfunctional emotions, behaviors, and 

cognitions through a goal-oriented, systematic procedure. 

VI-24 
 

 

Berkshire JSHS is providing a wraparound of behavioral and mental health services through a 

clinical team of staff that includes a psychiatrist, a psychologist, social workers, Behavior 

Management Specialists (BMSs), and a mental health clinician from the community.13 The goal 

of this approach is to bridge the line of communication between mental health clinicians and 

school staff members, so that behavioral and mental health interventions can be included in all 

aspects of a student’s program. Currently, Berkshire JSHS has five BMS positions, three of 

which are supported with grant funds. BMSs serve as liaisons between teachers and other mental 

health staff, communicating key information to staff regarding the possible reasons behind a 

student’s behavior (e.g., family death, not taking medications, etc.). In addition, Berkshire JSHS 

is supporting two Adventure-Based Counselor (ABC) positions with grant funds; these 

individuals are responsible for engaging groups of students in experiential learning activities and 

discussions. 

All seven SDP schools house grant-funded case management staff members in the school’s 

Student Success Center (SCC). (As discussed above, the SCCs also play central roles in the 

employment strategies at all the Philadelphia schools; for a more detailed discussion of the SSCs, 

see “Student Success Centers” above.) The primary staff person responsible for case 

management at SDP schools is the social worker, who sometimes has the title “re-engagement 

specialist.” The social worker is responsible for coordinating key social support services for 

target students, reviewing students’ educational histories (credits attained, courses passed, and 

schools attended), providing group and individual counseling, and connecting students and their 

families to community resources. Social workers also work closely with non-grant funded 

school counselors and other support staff, such as student advisors and parent ombudsmen, to 

address students’ needs. Although post-secondary and career development specialists are 

primarily responsible for providing career and post-secondary exploration activities with 

students, they also support and work collaboratively with the social workers to provide one-onone case management to students on an as-needed basis. 

Target Groups 

The students most in need are generally those targeted for case management interventions. 

Nearly all schools are targeting specific groups of at-risk students (i.e., students on the school’s 

13 The psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, and mental health clinician positions are not supported with grant 

funds. 

VI-25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early Warning Indicator List,14 or who have low attendance or behavior problems) for these 

services. Exhibit VI-10 highlights core target groups for case management interventions. 

Exhibit VI-10: 

Target Groups for Case Management Interventions 

Ninth-Grade 

Students 

Students at Any 

Grade Level 

At-risk 

Students1 

Bartram HS  

Berkshire JSHS 

Du Bois HS   

FitzSimons HS  

Germantown HS  

Lincoln HS  

Overbrook HS  

University City HS 

West Philadelphia HS  

1 At-risk students include students on school’s EWI list or who have low attendance, high 

truancy, or behavior problems. 

A number of key observations can be derived from the data in Exhibit VI-10: 

	 Five of the nine schools are specifically targeting ninth grade students for 

case management services. Three schools (Bartram HS, West Philadelphia HS, 

and Germantown HS) are targeting primarily “at-risk” ninth grade students, while 

University City HS and Du Bois HS are targeting all ninth-grade students. All 

ninth-grade students at Du Bois HS receive case management from the 

FUTURES program advocates, while at-risk ninth-grade students also participate 

in more intensive case management interventions (i.e., one-on-one counseling, 

anger management, etc). Ninth-grade students are targeted for services because, 

as a group, they are more likely to fall behind and drop out than any other group 

of students. 

	 Berkshire is the only school that targets all its students for case management. 

The very high-risk nature of Berkshire JSHS’s population requires that all 

students receive case management and counseling support. Berkshire JSHS also 

mandates that all students participate in counseling services and have an 

Individual Education Plan (IEP). 

14	 The EWI list, a collaboration among the Philadelphia Education Fund, John Hopkins University, City Year 

Greater Philadelphia and CIS, tracks individual student data (i.e., poor attendance, repeated behavior problems, 

failing English and math) to identify students at key transition points (grades six and nine) who are at risk of 

dropping out. 

VI-26 
 

 

 

 

	 Four other schools target students at any grade level who have behavioral or 

attendance problems. These schools include Overbrook HS, Fitzsimmons HS, 

Lincoln HS, and Du Bois HS. As will be discussed later in this chapter, students 

receive a combination of one-on-one counseling, group counseling, and 

attendance and behavioral support, as needed. 

In most cases, teachers and school leaders refer students for case management services if they are 

concerned about the student’s academic performance or behavior or learn of confidential 

information during a one-on-one meeting with the student or parent/guardian. Students can meet 

with the case manager once or twice, but then must get parental consent in order to receive 

regular individual counseling. Because getting parental permission for counseling is sometimes 

difficult, many of the schools provide numerous group counseling options. The school can 

require that students participate in group counseling. 

The number of students who received case management services in SY 2009–2010 varies by 

school. Berkshire JSHS provides all students with case management. At Du Bois HS, 

approximately 13 percent of the school population received case management through the 

FUTURES Works program. With the exception of Berkshire JSHS, the number of students 

receiving one-on-one case management or mental health counseling at any one time generally 

ranged from 15 to 40 students per school, with the total number of students served not exceeding 

100.15 Although the evaluation does not have access to exact numbers of students participating 

in group counseling, it is safe to presume that many more students were served using this 

approach. 

Three Case Management Strategies 

The MEES schools are implementing three core case management strategies: providing group 

counseling, providing individual counseling, and using a team-based case management approach 

to address problems with attendance and behavior. The goal of all three interventions is to 

remove barriers to student success. 

15	 The evaluation is not reporting MIS data on case management because the numbers that schools reported in the 

MIS appear to not be an accurate representation of case management services funded by the MEES grant across 

the schools. Some schools reported very high case management numbers in the MIS, likely because they are 

counting any student visiting the SSC as receiving case management. Other schools reported much lower case 

management numbers, more in keeping with the caseloads of social workers or counselors. 

VI-27 
Providing Group Counseling 

Case management staff members provide group counseling on a range of issues, including anger 

management, conflict resolution, goal setting, peer pressure, family issues, gang involvement, 

and other topics. Group counseling involves a small group of students (usually eight to 15) who 

meet together with a group facilitator, at least bi-weekly, to discuss their struggles and problems. 

These groups take a variety of forms, some focusing on a specific topic or problem and others 

addressing different school and family concerns. 

For instance, the anger management counselor at Du Bois HS is implementing two anger 

management groups, one for girls and one for boys. This facilitator uses a CBT approach to 

assist students in dealing with environmental stressors. The approach begins with increasing 

awareness of anger, wherein the focus is to help students notice when they are getting angry, 

what triggers their anger, how frequently they experience the triggers, and what occurs as a 

consequence of acting in anger. The anger management counselor then works with students to 

acknowledge and work through their anger, while also teaching coping skills. 

At Berkshire JSHS, ABC case management staff members use an experiential learning model to 

enhance students’ skills in communication, decision-making, trust and empathy, cooperation, 

conflict resolution, giving and receiving feedback, and personal and social responsibilities. To 

do this, students are engaged in ropes course activities that require them to work as teams to 

accomplish their goals. The ABC model begins with a “check-in” or icebreaker activity that 

allows the group to establish a level of trust and cooperation. ABC counselors then present the 

objective of the course, allowing the students in the group to work together to complete their 

task. Each ropes course session ends with a group discussion. Over time, the courses become 

increasingly difficult. The ABC group occurs once a week and 136 students participated during 

the 2009–2010 school year. 

Groups that focus on gender-related issues were common among the nine schools. For instance, 

the SSC social worker at FitzSimons HS facilitates and advises the “Gay-Straight Alliance” 

group. This group meets twice a week, providing social support, advocacy, and a safe 

environment for students who identify as gay, bi-sexual, and transgender. Students also plan 

activities, such as film reviews, to educate and provide information to other students and staff 

regarding LGBTQ issues. The social worker also facilitates a support group for students in all 

grades called “Man 2 Man.” This group follows a curriculum focused on positive decisionmaking and healthy sexual choices for males. At the time of the spring site visit, this social 

worker had facilitated 12 sessions with this group, and roughly 15 students participated in each 

group. Other schools are also implementing gender-specific groups that focus on healthy sexual 

choices and positive decision-making, such as the “Girls Empowerment Group” at West 

VI-28 
 

Philadelphia HS, and “Pillow Talk” for girls and the “Gentlemen’s Club” for young boys at Du 

Bois HS. 

Case management staff members also led a variety of different topical groups that were active 

for short periods of time. For instance, case management staff members at Lincoln HS and West 

Philadelphia HS offer grief and loss groups for students dealing with a variety of emotional 

issues. The social worker at Overbrook HS leads an anti-gang affiliation group for students 

involved with gang-related issues at the school and four-week-long “attendance groups” for 

students with eight or more unexcused absences. 

Providing Individual Counseling 

Because some students need intensive individualized support, case management staff members 

also provide individual counseling. Individual counseling, like group counseling, focuses on a 

range of issues, including anger management, conflict resolution, goal setting, peer pressure, and 

family issues. However, for individual counseling, case management staff members work with 

students one-on-one to explore the student’s feelings and behaviors, relationships with others, 

choices and decisions, as well as the student’s current situation in detail. In addition, these staff 

members develop treatment plans with students, meet with parents, and sometimes conduct home 

visits. 

For instance, at the time of the spring 2010 site visit, the social worker at Bartram HS was 

providing one-on-one counseling and therapy on a weekly basis to roughly 16 students during 

their lunch periods. This staff member said: 

I really focus on cognitive behavioral therapy, which gets [students] to 

focus on what’s going on around them and trying to think more positively 

about things and set goals. 

Similarly, the social worker at Overbrook HS was meeting with roughly 25 students on an 

individual basis, about issues ranging from teenage pregnancy to grief and loss and various 

family problems. Case managers do all they can to provide intensive, individualized support to 

students, often conducting home visits and working collaboratively with school staff members to 

address students’ needs. 

Using a Team-Based Approach to Address Attendance and Behavior 

Problems 

In addition to providing individualized and personalized support to at-risk students, Du Bois HS 

and all of the SDP schools are using team-based approaches for identifying and intervening on 

behalf of students who have problems with attendance and behavior. Grant-funded case 

VI-29 
management staff members participate in these case management teams. Du Bois HS has a 

Social Support Team (SST) and the SDP schools use the Comprehensive Student Assistance 

Program (CSAP). 

The SST at Du Bois HS is an interdisciplinary team of professionals, including two grant-funded 

staff members, that provides support and referrals to students with behavior and attendance 

issues. The SST consists of a teacher, special education teacher, mental health clinician, school 

nurse, school psychologist, drug counselor, school social worker, school administrator, guidance 

counselor, and parent outreach program representative. Each student assigned to the SST has an 

individual intervention plan, and all of the teachers and support staff members working with the 

student are made aware of the plan and play a role in helping to monitor the student’s progress. 

The SST also develops school-wide policies designed to help improve safety and foster an 

environment that encourages positive behavior. For example, the SST established hallmonitoring protocols to reduce instances of “student roaming.” One policy, for example, is for 

teachers not to give students hall passes 15 minutes after class starts and 15 minutes before it 

ends. This is intended to discourage students from trying to extend their break periods while also 

minimizing classroom disruptions. 

The CSAP process at the SDP schools is a school-wide process that involves most school staff 

members. The grant-funded social worker participates in a CSAP team that develops and 

implements an intervention plan for students who have attendance or behavioral challenges. The 

role of the social worker on the team is to help identify barriers that prevent a student from 

learning, and to connect students and families to school and community-based resources that can 

help to address those barriers. 

In addition to the formal case management programs described above, case management staff 

members team more informally with teachers and school counselors and leaders to streamline 

academic services and support within and outside of the classroom. 

Case Management Challenges 

MEES schools are providing personalized and group support services to students. Case 

management staff members are focused on developing close relationships with students, and are 

viewed as vital by school leaders because they allow schools to provide more personalized 

supports for students. Across the nine schools, case management staff members have begun to 

address students’ needs and remove their barriers to academic success. A few challenges, 

however, impeded the work of case managers in the first year of grant implementation: 

	 Some case managers were confused about their roles and responsibilities 

within their schools. One cause of this confusion was the overlapping of roles 

VI-30 
between school staff members and CBO staff members. Some case management 

staff members were also troubled by getting different directives from the school 

principal and his or her contracting agency. A social worker from an SDP school 

stated: 

I struggled early on because I was getting marching orders from a lot of 

different places and I was trying to appease everybody. I had people 

defining what my role is based on what their idea of what a social worker 

is. I had to have an assurance of what I’m here to do, and contracted to 

do, and I had to communicate that clearly to all the different parties... At 

one point, I printed out my job description so that people would know... 

In the next year of grant implementation, stakeholders hope to reach greater 

consensus about the roles and target groups of case managers. 

	 Obtaining parent/guardian approval for students in need of individual 

counseling has been difficult. Some social workers had a very difficult time 

getting parental permission for individual counseling from parents/guardians. 

Parents are sometimes reluctant to give consent for these services because they 

are wary about getting involved with “social services” and sometimes they 

distrust case management staff members because they are employed by 

contractors rather than the school. Without the consent of parent/guardians, case 

management staff members cannot provide individual counseling, which staff 

members feel is pivotal for many students. 

Summary of Findings 

This chapter provided an overview of the various employment and case management strategies 

that MEES schools are implementing. Nearly all schools have begun to engage a large 

percentage of the school’s population in school-wide and targeted activities. For instance, all of 

the SSCs at the SDP schools served over 50 percent of the school population in SY 2009–2010. 

Between 15 and 69 percent of students at SDP schools have received career preparation services, 

which included activities like job shadows, career fairs, individual career counseling, and job 

preparation workshops. Between 12 and 44 percent of students at SDP schools have received 

college access services, which included college exposure, assistance with college applications, 

and financial aid counseling. Further, the implementation and expansion of the SSC model itself 

was defined by most stakeholders in Philadelphia as a key success. The centers are magnets for 

students, many of whom say that they feel a sense of belonging and care at the SSCs that they do 

not find elsewhere in their schools. 

All schools made some progress placing students into internships, with between 1 and 20 percent 

of students participating in internships in SY 2009–2010. Du Bois HS was particularly effective 

at placing students into internships, in part because it partnered with MOED to run the Career 

Connections and the FUTURES Works program. Because MOED is a strong workforce partner, 

VI-31 
 

Du Bois HS was able to identify a range of high-quality internships for over 70 percent of 

eleventh- and twelfth-grade students. 

Across all nine schools, key case management staff members have been hired, and case 

management staff members have worked diligently to develop relationships with students and 

their parents and teachers to address students’ behavioral, academic, and social needs. Moving 

forward, school and CBO staff members plan to continue to collaborate to provide personalized 

and intensive post-secondary exposure and wraparound supports to students. 

VI-32 
VII. EVIDENCE OF SCHOOL CHANGE 

This chapter provides a summary of school-wide changes occurring at the MEES schools, as 

captured by the schools’ management information system (MIS) reports and by evaluation site 

visits. Because the evaluation team only has access to school-wide data, it is not possible to 

tease out the influence of the grant on specific students within the school, or to isolate the effects 

of grant-funded programs from that of other (positive or negative) influences at the schools. This 

chapter, therefore, avoids discussing grant outcomes per se, focusing instead on evidence of 

school-wide changes on key measures of school climate, academic performance, and school 

culture, with the understanding that the MEES grant is one of multiple factors that may be 

contributing to change at each of the schools. The chapter begins with a brief description of data 

sources and a model of school change that lays out core outcomes of interest for the evaluation. 

It then presents school-wide data on attendance, student behavior, ninth-grade course completion 

and promotion, and academic performance. The chapter concludes with a discussion of 

challenges and lessons learned and a summary of findings. 

Data 

This chapter draws heavily on the MIS data that MEES schools have submitted to DOL, which 

are described in Chapter I of this report. In addition to the MIS data, this chapter draws on 

quantitative data provided by the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) for the baseline year (SY 

2007–2008) and planning year (SY 2008–2009), narrative quarterly reports submitted to DOL by 

the schools, and data collected by SPR staff members during evaluation site visits. The 

quantitative data in this chapter are aggregate school-wide data that cover a period of three years: 

the pre-grant-award baseline year (SY 2007–2008), the planning year (SY 2008–2009), and the 

first year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). Because most grantees did not fund services 

during the planning year, the analysis focuses primarily on comparing data from the first year of 

implementation (SY 2009–2010) to that of the baseline year (SY 2007–2008). 

The data presented in this chapter document the progress to date on the part of schools and, as 

such, they can serve as benchmarks that can be monitored as schools transition into full grant 

implementation. Since the majority of grant-funded programs did not launch until late in the 

VII-1 
 

 

 

spring of 2010, the changes documented in this chapter are necessarily preliminary in nature. 

The changes described this chapter may reflect typical year-to-year fluctuations in behavioral 

and academic outcomes at the schools, rather than trends that have been influenced by the grant. 

Although the evaluation is ending in December 2010, data from the second full year of grant 

implementation (SY 2010–2011) will be a much more accurate measure of the success of the 

initiative. 

Overview of School Change 

In Exhibit VII-1 we present a Model for School Change, which is adapted from a dropout 

prevention framework developed by Robert Balfanz at John’s Hopkins University.1 The Model 

for School Change provides an overview of the core measures of school change discussed in this 

chapter and outlines the relationships between these measures. 

Exhibit VII-1: 

Model of School Change 

The framework is adapted from Robert Balfanz’s Structural Equation Model of the Environmental Context of 

Student Learning and Achievement. See: http://www.every1graduates.org/PDFs/Three_Steps.pdf 

VII-2 

1 
 

 

For the MEES grants, the core inputs are the services and interventions that are funded by the 

grant. If the services and interventions are of high quality, they provide students with support 

from teachers and adults, engage parents, and increase student’s intrinsic motivation by 

providing real-world applications for what they are learning in the classroom. The Model 

assumes that increased adult support and student motivation will yield positive changes in (1) 

attendance, (2) behavior, (3) course completion and grade promotion, and (4) academic 

performance (as measured by standardized tests). As can be deduced from the diagram, the 

Model for School Change makes the following assumptions about the relationships between core 

outcomes: 

	 Teacher and adult support contribute primarily to changes in student behavior and 

motivation. Changes in behavior and motivation, in turn, help to set the stage for 

increased levels of course completion and subsequent academic gains. The model 

assumes, therefore, that changes in student behavior often precede changes in 

academic performance. 

	 Parental support and students’ intrinsic motivation are the key determinants of
 

attendance. Attendance, in turn, is central to all aspects of school performance, 

including behavior, course completion, and academic gains. 

As large and complicated systems, schools are notoriously difficult to change. The Model of 

School Change is useful for understanding what measures, such as attendance and behavior, 

serve as “early indicators” of school turnaround success. Within this chapter, attendance and 

behavior are addressed in the section on changes in school climate. Course completion, 

promotion, and academic gains are addressed in the section on changes in academic 

performance. 

Changes in School Climate 

One overarching goal of the MEES grants is to improve the climate at each of the schools by 

increasing attendance, reducing violence, and reducing suspensions and other behavioral 

disruptions in the classroom. Research indicates that a positive school climate has a particularly 

powerful effect on student achievement for students who attend high-poverty schools like the 

MEES schools.2

 As illustrated by the Model of School Change, improvements in school climate 

See, for example: Kannapel, P. J., and Clements, S. K., with Taylor, D., and Hibpshman, T. (2005). Inside the 

black box of high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic 

Excellence. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from www.prichardcommittee.org/Ford%Study/FordReportJE.pdf 

VII-3 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

are an important precursor to improving student achievement, because learning gains are 

unlikely to occur in an environment that is chaotic, unsafe, or where students routinely do not 

attend school. 

Schools are trying to achieve the following core performance goals with the grant: 

	 increase Average Daily Attendance (ADA); 

	 decrease the percentage of students who miss 54 or more days; 

	 decrease the rate of all incidents involving suspension, expulsion, or arrest; 

	 decrease the number of severe incidents that count towards persistently dangerous 

school status; and 

	 decrease the number of students who become involved in the juvenile justice 

system. 

This section of the chapter focuses on those aspects of school climate highlighted above that are 

being tracked through the MIS system. Other essential dimensions of school climate, such as 

teacher collaboration, are discussed further in the Changes to School Culture section of this 

chapter. 

Attendance 

Increasing Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is integral to improving academic performance in 

low-performing schools. Students who have consistently low attendance receive fewer hours of 

classroom instruction, have a lower GPA, perform poorly on standardized tests, and are likely to 

face academic risks, such as non-promotion and dropping out.3

 Research also indicates that the 

consequences of low attendance are particularly profound for low-income urban youth because 

low attendance exacerbates differences in academic preparation over time.4 

Exhibit VII-2 highlights changes in ADA, comparing ADA from the pre-grant baseline year (SY 

2007–2008) to that of the first year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

3	 Neild, Balfanz, & Herzog (2007). An Early Warning System. Educational Leadership. 65 (2). Pg. 28-33. 

4	 Gottfried, Michael (2010). Evaluating the Relationship between Student Attendance and Achievement in Urban 

Elementary and Middle Schools: An Instrumental Variables Approach. American Educational Research Journal 

June 2010, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 434-465. 

VII-4 
 

Exhibit VII-2: 

Changes in Average Daily Attendance 

School 

Average Daily 

Attendance (ADA) 1 Ninth Grade ADA2

 Percentage of 

Students missing 54 

days or more 

Bartram HS 

Baseline Year (2007–2008) 80.4 78.0 23.2 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 80.5 80.6 18.5 

Net Change +.1 +2.6 -4.7

 Du Bois HS3 

Baseline (2007–2008) 81.6 Not available 13.1 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 76.4 64.5 20.1 

Net Change -5.2 Not available +7 

FitzSimons HS 

Baseline Year (2007–2008) 75.2 76.0 23.5 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 75.6 79.1 20.6 

Net Change +.4 +3.1 -2.9 

Germantown HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 77.9 76.0 23.2 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 74.6 70.5 29.9 

Net Change - 3.3 -5.5 +6.7 

Lincoln HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 80.1 78.0 15.8 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 81.5 79.5 15.0 

Net Change +1.4 +1.5 -.8 

Overbrook HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 76.7 72.0 21.8 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 78.5 80.6 21.2 

Net Change +1.8 +8.6 -.6 

University City HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 76.6 72.0 23.6 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 77.0 72.8 22.6 

Net Change +.4 +.8 -1.0 

VII-5
 
School 

Average Daily 

Attendance (ADA) 1 Ninth Grade ADA2

West Philadelphia HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 77.5 Not available 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 79.4 76.4 

Net Change +1.9 Not available 

Average for Empowerment Schools in Philadelphia4 

Year 1 (2009–2010) 80.6 77.6 

 Percentage of 

Students missing 54 

days or more 

20.9 

20.2 

-.7
 

15.7
 

1 Average Daily Attendance (ADA) is calculated by taking the total number of days of student attendance and dividing it by the 

total number of days of school for all students on the schools’ registrar during the same period. 

2 Ninth grade attendance data for SY 2009–2010 are from the year-end MIS reports, while data for SY 2007–2008 are from 

data reports provided by SDP. 

3 Ninth grade ADA for Du Bois HS is a calculated average based on quarterly reports. 

4

 Empowerment Schools in Philadelphia are schools that are in Corrective Action II status under NCLB, meaning they have 

missed performance targets for five or more years. All of the MEES schools in SDP are also Empowerment Schools, and 

Empowerment Schools serve a similar population to the MEES schools. 

Note: The table does not include data on Berkshire JSHS because it is a residential school and does not report ADA as do the 

other schools. At Berkshire JSHS in SY 2009–2010, zero students refused to attend class. 

The following are key findings on attendance, based on the data available. 

	 Overall, ADA remains very low at the MEES schools. ADA for the first year 

of implementation ranged from a low of 76.4 percent at Germantown HS to a high 

of 81.5 percentage points at Lincoln HS. With the exception of Lincoln HS, all 

schools are below the ADA average of 80.6 percent for Empowerment Schools in 

the SDP. 

	 Changes in school-wide ADA are small, with six schools showing marginal 

increases and two showing decreases. No schools met the target DOL 

performance goal of raising ADA by five percentage points. West Philadelphia 

HS showed the greatest gain in ADA, with an increase of 1.9 percentage points. 

Lincoln HS and Overbrook HS also showed increases in ADA of over one 

percentage point. In contrast, two schools, Du Bois HS and Germantown HS, 

experienced rather dramatic declines in ADA (5.2 and 3.3 percentage points, 

respectively). Staff members at these schools attribute declining attendance to the 

a higher proportion of repeat ninth graders, who historically have low attendance. 

	 In five of the six schools for which we have ninth-grade attendance data, 

ADA for ninth graders rose more than for the overall population. For the 

baseline year, most schools had a lower ADA for ninth graders than for the 

overall student population. At the end of the first year of implementation, 

however, several schools had made progress with ninth-grade attendance, so 

much so that ADA for ninth graders exceeded that of the overall student 

population. Overbrook HS had an increase in ninth-grade attendance of 8.6 

percent, well over two times that of other schools. One reason for this is that 

Overbrook HS staff members took special steps to examine data on attendance, 

held attendance support groups, and conducted home visits to all ninth-grade 

VII-6 
students who had been chronically truant. Schools with strong, well-developed 

ninth grade academies, such as Bartram HS and Overbrook HS, had higher levels 

of ninth grade attendance than those with no ninth grade academy. 

	 With the exception of Germantown HS and DuBois HS, all SDP schools 

decreased the percentage of students who were absent 54 days or more. 

Bartram HS decreased the number of students who missed 54 days or more by 

nearly five percentage points (4.7 percent), while other schools had decreases that 

ranged from .6 to 2.9 percentage points. 

	 A quarter-by-quarter analysis of ADA shows that, for most schools, 

attendance dropped significantly from quarter one to quarter four. As 

illustrated in Exhibit VII-3, ADA for most schools was at least five percentage 

points higher in the first quarter of the school year than it was in the last quarter. 

School staff indicated that a slow but steady decline in ADA is typical. Two 

schools, however, defied this pattern. Overbrook HS was the only school that 

increased ADA in the last quarter of the school year. One reason for this is that 

Overbrook HS staff members took very intensive steps to increase attendance, as 

is described in detail above. University City HS also defied the larger pattern, as 

attendance increased from quarter one to quarter two. This increase also is due in 

part to outreach to parents, as school staff arranged meetings with the parents of 

every student on the Early Warning Indicator (EWI) list. 

Exhibit VII-3: 

Quarterly ADA for SY 2009–2010 

VII-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

At most schools, the evaluation did not have access to attendance data for individual grantfunded programs. In the case of Du Bois HS, however, the school reported ADA for students 

enrolled in specific grant-funded programs, such as the Futures Program and the Transitional 

Evening School (TES), indicating that attendance was significantly higher for participants of 

these programs than for the general school population. For instance, although ADA for all ninth 

graders at Du Bois HS in SY 2009–2010 was the lowest of the schools (64.5 percent), this was 

mostly due to the high number of repeat ninth graders at this school. Sixty percent of all ninth 

graders at Du Bois HS are repeating the ninth grade, a percentage that is much higher than that of 

other schools. ADA for the 84 incoming ninth graders, all of whom attended the ninth grade 

academy, was 83 percent, significantly higher than that of the average for all ninth graders or the 

general school population. Similarly, Du Bois HS reported that ADA for the 19 students 

attending the Transitional Evening School increased from 36 percent to 65 percent as a group 

and that ADA for students in the Futures Works Program was five to ten percentage points 

higher than for all students at the school.5 

Although some schools have made small increases in attendance in the first year of grant 

implementation, particularly for ninth graders, this remains an area for improvement. The 

schools continue to take steps to improve attendance, with a particular focus on ninth graders. 

For instance, the SDP is taking district-wide measures to raise attendance by requiring that all 

schools with an ADA below 90 percent hire attendance and truancy coordinators to monitor 

student attendance, provide oversight for attendance interventions, and make referrals to truancy 

court.6 

5	 The Transitional Evening School is a grant-funded credit retrieval program offered at Du Bois HS after school 

hours. The Futures Works program, which is also grant-funded, is a case management program for ninth-grade 

students. 

6	 Imagine 2014: Project Safe Schools. http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/announcements/project-safe-schools-9-22-

10.pdf Retrieved September 25, 2010. 

VII-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student Behavior 

One of the primary goals of the MEES grant is to reduce the level of violence at the schools, 

including the rate of incidents that lead to suspensions,7

 expulsion,8 or arrest.9 Schools report 

MIS behavioral data in quarterly reports and in end-of-the-year reports. Exhibit VII-4 presents 

changes between the pre-grant baseline year (SY 2007–2008) and the first year of grant 

implementation (SY 2008–2009) in the following areas: (1) the number of serious incidents of 

violence that count towards PDS status, (2) the suspension rate per 100 students, (3) the 

expulsion rate per 100 students, and (4) the arrest rate per 100 students.10 

Exhibit VII-4: 

Changes in the Number of Serious Incidents and 

Rate of Suspensions, Expulsions, and Arrests per 100 Students 

Number of 

Serious Suspension Expulsion 

School Year Incidents Rate Rate Arrest Rate 

Bartram HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 15 23.0 2.9 1.9 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 18 12.6 2.3 1.4 

Net Change +3 -10.4 -.6 -.50 

Berkshire JSHS1, 2 

Baseline (2007–2008) 210 106.0 4.9 Not applicable 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 170 14.8 1.3 Not applicable 

Net Change -40 -91.2 -3.6 Not applicable 

7	 Suspensions tracked through the MIS include only out-of-school suspensions, where a student is excluded from 

school for up to 10 days. 

8	 Expulsion is the exclusion of a student from the School District for a period exceeding 10 school days. 

Expulsions may be permanent or may be for a specified period of time. In order for a student to be expelled, he 

or she must go through an expulsion hearing. Expulsion rates also include “disciplinary transfers.” 

9	 Arrest numbers include all students arrested on school grounds and students who are arrested off of school 

grounds, if school staff is notified by police of the arrest. Students who are released without being referred to 

Juvenile Court are not included in arrest numbers. 

10	 In most cases, rates were calculated using enrollment numbers provided by schools in the “new school year” 

MIS reports. For FitzSimons HS (a combined middle school-high school), behavioral data is for the whole 

school, so rates were calculated using the whole school enrollment of 453, rather than the enrollment provided in 

the new school year report, which is for grades nine–twelve only. In the case of Berkshire JSHS, rates are 

calculated using the cumulative number of students enrolled over the school year, which was taken from the 

fourth quarter MIS report. 

VII-9 
 

 

Number of 

School Year 

Serious 

Incidents 

Suspension 

Rate 

Expulsion 

Rate Arrest Rate 

Du Bois HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 23 55.5 2.5 Not available 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 4 26.0 0 1.0 

Net Change -19 -29.5 -2.5 Not available 

FitzSimons HS1 

Baseline (2007–2008) 7 73.0 3.2 8.4 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 22 116.0 8.5 9.6 

Net Change +15 +43.0 +5.3 +1.2 

Germantown HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 23 91.5 7.8 6.6 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 18 52.0 4.0 5.9 

Net Change -5 -39.5 -3.8 -.70 

Lincoln HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 28 39.5 1.6 5.2 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 37 49.0 1.4 6.2 

Net Change +9 +9.5 -.20 +1.0 

Overbrook HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 20 29.8 3.2 9.7 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 22 19.3 4.6 2.6 

Net Change +2 -10.5 +1.4 -7.1 

University City HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 18 52.8 1.7 4.3 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 9 70.4 4.4 2.0 

Net Change -9 +17.8 +2.7 -2.3 

West Philadelphia HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 19 66.4 6.2 4.1 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 8 20.4 6.5 1.4 

Net Change -8 -46.0 +.30 -2.7 

1 Behavioral data for FitzSimons HS and Berkshire JSHS are for the whole school, including students in the seventh and eighth grade. 

The rates of behavioral incidents, therefore, were calculated using whole school enrollment for these schools, rather than enrollment for 

grades nine–twelve only. 

2

 Data for Berkshire JSHS is distinct from that of other schools. The incident rate is based on Violent and Disruptive Incident Reporting 

(VADIR) score for New York State, rather than the total number of incidents, because our baseline data is a VADIR score. Berkshire 

JSHS had seven serious incidents in SY 2009–2010. The expulsion rate includes students who are referred to a more restrictive 

environment. Also, the large reduction in the rate of suspensions reflects Berkshire JSHS’s use of classroom Behavioral Management 

Specialists (BMS) instead of suspension. 

VII-10 
The following are key findings on violent incidences, suspensions, expulsions and arrests. 

	 Five schools reduced the number of serious incidents counting towards PDS 

status. Du Bois HS showed the greatest decline in serious incidents, reducing the 

number of serious incidents from 23 in SY 2007–2008 to four in SY 2009–2010. 

Berkshire JSHS also had a dramatic decline in serious incidents, something staff 

attributes to grant-funded case management staff and strategies for helping to 

monitor students during passing periods. University City HS and West 

Philadelphia HS also reduced the number of serious incidents by 50 percent or 

more from the baseline year. 

	 Three schools were removed from the PDS list at the end of the first year of 

grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). The removal of West Philadelphia HS, 

Germantown HS, and University HS from the PDS list at the end of the 2009– 

2010 school year reduced the total number of MEES schools on the list to four (of 

nine schools). Although University City HS has been on and off the PDS list over 

the last couple of years, this year is the first time that Germantown HS and West 

Philadelphia HS have been removed from the PDS list since the 2002–2003 

school year, when the NCLB legislation first required that “persistently 

dangerous” schools be identified. Du Bois HS and Bartram HS were removed 

from the PDS list at the end of the planning year (SY 2008–2009). The rest of the 

schools remain on the PDS list. 

	 In SY 2009–2010, FitzSimons HS experienced increases in suspensions, the 

arrest rate, and in the number of “serious incidents” that count towards PDS 

status. The number of serious incidents at FitzSimons HS in the first year of 

implementation was three times what it was in the baseline year, rising from 

seven to 22. FitzSimons HS had a dramatic, across-the-board increase in 

behavioral incidents. FitzSimons is a combined middle school and high school 

and although the grant serves students in grades nine through twelve, behavioral 

data is inclusive of all students who attend the school. Although the behavioral 

data is not broken out by grade-level, school staff members report that most of the 

behavioral incidents are by students in grades seven and eight. Staff members at 

FitzSimons HS attribute the SY 2009–2010 increase in serious incidents and 

suspensions to a lack of climate staffing. The two staff members who are 

responsible for climate interventions at FitzSimons HS were in a leadership 

program to become school principals in SY 2009–2010 and this training program 

kept them away from the school for a great deal of the school year. According to 

school staff members, this contributed to the increase in violence and suspensions 

at the school. 

	 Schools differed significantly in the rate of suspensions that students 

received, from a low of 12.6 suspensions per 100 students at Bartram HS to a 

high of 116 suspensions per 100 students at FitzSimons HS (SY 2009–2010). 

Five schools have a relatively low rate of suspension, with less than 30 

suspensions per 100 students, while three schools have approximately 50–70 

suspensions per 100 students. FitzSimons HS, an all-boys school, has a rate of 

suspensions that exceeds that of the other schools by a significant margin. 

Differences in the suspension rate map clearly to the rate of serious incidents at 

VII-11 
 

 

the schools; that is, schools with a higher number of serious incidents also have a 

higher rate of suspensions. Research suggests that the suspension rate is 

influenced by a range of school-level factors, such as the school administrator’s 

philosophy about discipline and the physical condition of the school.11 Research 

also indicates that boys experience a much higher rate of suspension than girls, 

which may partially explain why FitzSimons HS has a higher rate of suspension. 

	 Five schools reduced the suspension rate from SY 2007–2008 to SY 2009–
 

2010, with the most significant declines occurring at Berkshire JSHS, West 

Philadelphia HS, Germantown HS, and Du Bois HS. Schools that had a 

dramatic reduction in suspensions also reduced the number of serious incidents 

that occurred at the school. Each of these schools placed a high emphasis on 

improving the school climate, instituting programs like youth court, peacemaking 

circles, and intensive case management in order to reduce the number of 

suspensions. In some cases, these reductions may be due to specific grant-funded 

programs. For instance, Berkshire JSHS no longer “suspends” students, but uses 

Behavioral Management Specialists to manage students’ behavior within the 

classroom setting. Germantown HS used grant funds to create an in-school 

suspension program (the Alternative Learning Center) that may have contributed 

to reductions in out-of-school suspensions. However, not all schools that created 

in-school suspension programs had a reduction in suspensions. 

	 In the first year of implementation, the expulsion rate ranged from a low of 

zero at Du Bois HS to a high of 8.5 per 100 students at FitzSimons HS. The 

expulsion rate increased at four schools for which we have baseline data, and 

declined at three of the schools. The expulsion rate increased the most at 

FitzSimons HS and University City HS, while declining the most at Germantown 

HS. In general, the expulsion rate closely parallels other behavioral trends at each 

of the schools. Du Bois HS’s low rate of expulsion may be due in part to the 

work of its Student Support Team case management model, where a team of 

counselors and teachers target services to at-risk students in order to improve 

behavior and reduce expulsions. 

Exhibit VII-5 graphs the overall incident rate per 100 students for three years. The overall 

incident rate is the total number of serious incidents, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests per 100 

students. 

11 McLoughlon, C & Noltemeyer, A. (2010). Research into Factors Contributing to Discipline Use and 

Disproportionality in Major Urban Schools. 

VII-12 
Exhibit VII-5: 

Changes in the Overall Incident Rate Per 100 Students, 

SY 2007–2008, SY 2008–2009, SY 2009–2010 

As illustrated in the exhibit, four of the seven schools for which we have data have experienced a 

continuous decline in the overall incident rate over the last three years. West Philadelphia HS 

and Germantown HS have shown a consistent reduction in the overall incident rate since the 

award of the grant. The overall incident rate for Lincoln HS and University City HS increased 

for the planning year of the grant (SY 2008–2009), but then declined somewhat during the first 

year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). Many school leaders attribute the positive shifts 

in climate to the additional educational staff members hired by the MEES grant, saying that 

teachers have better control of their classrooms and, as a result, there are fewer disciplinary 

referrals and suspensions. At Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS, school leaders viewed grantVII-13 
funded case management and counseling staff members as playing key roles in reducing the 

number of serious incidents and the rate of suspensions. 

In contrast to the trend at most other schools, FitzSimons HS’s overall incident rate fell during 

the planning year of the grant, only to spike up in the first year of grant implementation. In SY 

2009–2010, the overall incident rate at FitzSimons HS was 134 per 100 students, almost twice 

that of any other school. Several different data sources, including interviews with staff members 

and students, suggest that climate protocols were not consistently enforced in SY 2009–2010. 

For instance, a student said that, despite having metal detectors at school, he does not feel safe 

because, “I know of certain kids that get in the school without even coming through the metal 

detectors, who have friends on the inside that they’ll call or text and say, ‘come open the door for 

me.’” As discussed previously, FitzSimons staff members attribute the elevated incident rate to 

the lack of sufficient climate staffing at the school, and have hired new staff members to focus on 

climate in SY 2010–2011. 

Many of the students who were interviewed during the round-three site visits reported that the 

schools they attended were either not as bad as they expected them to be, or that the school had 

improved as a result of new leadership or new programs. The following student quotes are 

representative. 

It’s not as bad as I expected it to be. Before hand, I was like, ‘don’t make 

me go here!’ I pictured all this graffiti all over the walls. The way [this 

school] is described, you expect that it is all about survival of the fittest. 

But it’s not like that. The teachers are good. You can learn here. 

- Student, Germantown HS 

It changed a lot. When I started here, there were basically fires every day. 

The new principal, she really changed it. We have more programs than 

before. 

- Student, West Philadelphia HS 

Although a few schools, such as FitzSimons HS, appear to be facing significant challenges to 

improving their climate, the majority of schools are making incremental improvements. School 

staff members generally attribute the improvement in climate to increased staffing, reduced class 

sizes, and increased supportive services, such as those offered through the Student Success 

Centers. The improvements in school climate discussed in this section are promising, 

particularly given that many of the grant-funded interventions for climate were scheduled to 

launch in fall of 2010. 

VII-14 
 

 

 

 

 

Changes in Academic Performance 

The overarching goal of the MEES grants is to increase students’ academic performance, 

including their rate of high school completion, in order to improve their readiness for the 

workforce and postsecondary training. The following are the academic performance goals that 

schools are trying to achieve with the grant: 

 decrease rate of first-time ninth graders failing; 

 decrease rate of repeating ninth-grade students failing for a second year; 

 increase percentage of students testing at grade level; 

 increase percentage of students who are no longer basic-skills deficient; and 

 increase graduation rate. 

The evaluation team did not have access to three categories of data in time for this report: the 

percentage of students who are testing at grade level, the percentage of students who are no 

longer basic skills deficient, and the graduation rate. This chapter, therefore, looks primarily at 

ninth-grade academic performance and standardized test scores in order to gauge shifts in 

academic performance at the schools. 

Ninth-Grade Course Completion and Promotion Rates 

The MEES grant prioritizes interventions targeted at ninth graders, because more students fail 

the ninth grade than any other grade level. Students who repeat the ninth grade are more than 25 

percentage points more likely than other students to drop out of school, and approximately 30 

percent of high school dropouts never progress beyond the ninth grade.12 This section includes 

data on ninth-grade course completion and ninth-grade promotion as one measure of school 

change. 

Ninth-grade course completion and promotion data is valuable for understanding academic 

performance and for predicting graduation outcomes. Robert Balfanz, of John Hopkins, argues 

that course completion is a better predictor of graduation than test scores.13 It is difficult, 

however, to interpret course completion and promotion data because variations in the quality and 

standards of the teaching staff, or shifts in curriculum, may account for differences in course 

completion from year to year and from school to school. A decrease in the percentage of 

students who fail a course may mean that teachers are more effective at teaching core content or, 

12 Neild, Ruth. “Falling off Track during the Transition to High School: What we Know and What Can be Done.” 

http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/19_01_04.pdf 

13 http://www.every1graduates.org/PDFs/Three_Steps.pdf 

VII-15 
 

alternatively, it may mean that students are being held to lower standards. Even with a 

standardized curriculum, teachers have different expectations of the threshold that students must 

meet in order to pass a course. One teacher we spoke with, for instance, said that he passed 

students who showed consistent attendance and effort, even if they did not master all of the 

course material. Although course completion and promotion data are an imperfect measure of 

school change, they are an absolutely pivotal part of the puzzle, because students who stagnate in 

the same classes and at the same grade level are at a very high risk of dropping out. 

In order for ninth-grade students to move onto the tenth grade in the SDP or BCPS, they must 

earn seven units, including passing one unit each of English 1 and Algebra 1. As described in 

Chapter IV, most first-time ninth graders take English 1 and Algebra 1 along with a second 

period of math or English (i.e. enriched math or English). Failing English 1 or Algebra 1 during 

the school year does not necessarily mean that students fail to progress to the tenth grade, 

however, because students also have opportunities to re-take failed courses during summer 

school and to earn credits in after-school credit recovery classes. Ninth graders can fail to be 

promoted to the tenth grade if they fail three or more courses and do not make up the units for 

these courses in credit retrieval or summer school. Exhibit VII-6 summarizes changes in ninthgrade completion between the baseline year (SY 2007–2008) and the first year of grant 

implementation (SY 2009–2010). 

Exhibit VII-6: 

Changes in Ninth-Grade Course Completion
 

Percent of Ninth-Grade Students Who Fail to Pass: 

Three or More 

School Year English Math Subjects 

Bartram HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 25.5 30.0 23.9 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 14.7 24.9 18.1 

Net Change -10.8 -5.1 -5.8 

Berkshire JSHS2 

Baseline (2007–2008) 35.6 32.7 Not available 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 19.0 22.4 Not available 

Net Change -16.6 -10.3 Not available 

Du Bois HS1 

Baseline (2007–2008) 21.9 Not available 62.3 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 11.5 33.7 43.1 

Net Change -10.4 Not available -20.2 

VII-16 
 

Percent of Ninth-Grade Students Who Fail to Pass: 

Three or More 

School Year English Math Subjects 

FitzSimons HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 21.3 31.5 29.6 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 38.0 29.6 14.8 

Net Change +16.7 -1.9 -14.8 

Germantown HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 20.9 34.0 32.8 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 31.9 43.2 25.3 

Net Change +11.0 +9.2 -7.5 

Lincoln HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 30.0 29.2 34.5 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 24.0 30.1 25.0 

Net Change -6.0 +.9 -9.5 

Overbrook HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 23.8 17.7 21.8 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 26.9 18.7 9.9 

Net Change +3.1 +1.0 -11.9 

University City HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 25.6 29.8 32.2 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 25.4 35.0 39.6 

Net Change -.20 +5.2 +7.4 

West Philadelphia HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 26.3 26.3 31.5 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 14.2 25.4 17.7 

Net Change -12.1 -.90 -13.8 

1 In the MIS reports, Du Bois HS reported course completion data for first-time ninth graders only. We include numbers 

here for all ninth graders to make it comparable with other schools. 

2

 Because Berkshire JSHS used a credit-retrieval approach, this school reported the number of students who took ninthgrade English and ninth-grade math, and the corresponding number of students who passed these courses. 

The following are key findings on ninth-grade course completion. 

	 The percentage of ninth graders who failed three or more subjects declined 

for all but one of the schools for which we have data. The percentage of 

students who failed three or more subjects in SY 2009–2010 ranged from a low of 

9.9 percentage points at Overbrook HS to a high of 39.6 percentage points at 

University City HS. With the exception of University City HS, all schools 

VII-17 
reduced the percentage of ninth graders who failed three or more subjects from 

the baseline year. 

	 The failure rate of ninth graders in English declined somewhat at five 

schools, while increasing at three of the schools. During the implementation 

year, the percentage of students who failed English ranged from a low of 14 

percentage points at West Philadelphia HS and Bartram HS to a high of over 30 

percentage points at FitzSimons HS, Du Bois HS, and Germantown HS. The high 

transfer rate at Du Bois HS and Germantown HS may have contributed to the 

higher rate of course failure at these schools, because students who transfer in 

during the middle of a semester are more likely to fail their courses. 

	 The failure rate of ninth graders in math declined at four schools and 

increased at the other four schools. During the implementation year, the 

percentage of students who failed math ranged from a low of 18.7 percentage 

points at Overbrook HS to a high of 43.2 percentage points at Germantown HS. 

	 The failure rate for Algebra is consistently higher than it is for English. In 

general, there is a shortage of math teachers at the target schools and this may 

contribute to the higher failure rate in Algebra. 

	 Two schools showed a decline in all measures of the course failure rate. 

Bartram HS and West Philadelphia HS showed a decline in the course failure rate 

for English and Math, as well as in the percentage of students failing three or 

more courses. 

The course failure data shows mixed results for the schools. The results are somewhat surprising 

given the intensive focus that most of the schools placed on English and math. As described in 

Chapter IV, most schools provided two periods of math and English to each ninth grader. Many 

ninth-grade students attended English 1, Algebra 1, remedial English, and remedial math, with 

the hope that remedial support would help students pass their core English 1 and Algebra 1 

courses. Without individual-level data, it is not possible to know whether students placed into 

enriched English and math classes fared better as a group than students who were not in these 

classes. Changes in the curriculum and the structure of classes, however, likely contributed to 

the uneven results. For instance, SDP mandated that schools use an English 1A/1B and Algebra 

1A/1B structure for the first time in SY 2009–2010. The 1A/1B format, which requires that 

students pass the first semester of English or Algebra before moving to the second semester, may 

have contributed to the mixed results for SDP schools. 

Exhibit VII-7 provides an overview of changes in the promotion rate for first-time ninth graders 

in SDP schools over a three-year period. It shows that, despite the mixed results for course 

completion, most SDP schools are seeing an increase in ninth-grade promotion. This suggests 

that students are taking advantage of enhanced opportunities to make up credits in math and 

English through summer school or in credit retrieval classes offered after school. 

VII-18 
As illustrated in the exhibit, six of the seven SDP schools significantly increased the percentage 

of first-time ninth graders promoted to the tenth grade between the baseline year and the first 

year of grant implementation. In SY 2007–2008 the promotion of first-time ninth graders ranged 

from a low of 51.7 percentage points at University HS to a high of 69.7 percentage points at 

Overbrook HS. At the end of the first year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010), the 

promotion rate for six of the seven schools ranged from 74.1 percentage points to 89.1 

percentage points, an increase of 17 to 31 percentage points per school. The exception to this 

trend is University HS and Du Bois HS, which both stayed more or less the same with a one to 

four percentage point decrease in the percentage of first-time ninth graders promoted in 2010, 

when compared to the baseline year. The promotion rates are likely influenced by the full range 

of grant-funded services at the schools, particularly those focusing on providing intensive 

support to ninth grade students and avenues for students to make-up credits for failed classes. 

Exhibit VII-7: 

Percentage of First-Time Ninth-Grade Students 

Promoted to the Tenth Grade at SDP Schools
 

School Year Percent Promoted 

Bartram HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 60.0 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 77.7 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 77.6 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +17.6 

Du Bois HS1 

Baseline (2007–2008) 57.4 

Planning Year (2008-2009) Not available 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 53.6 

Net change from baseline to Y1 -3.8 

FitzSimons HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 54.7 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 71.4 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 85.7 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +31.0 

Germantown HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 58.9 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 73.2 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 76.7 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +17.8 

VII-19 
School Year Percent Promoted 

Lincoln HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 54.2 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 57.0 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 74.1 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +19.9 

Overbrook HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 69.7 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 87.2 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 87.5 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +17.8 

University City HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 51.7 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 60.6 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 50.4 

Net change from baseline to Y1 -1.3 

West Philadelphia HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 57.8 

Planning Year (2008-2009) 68.9 

Y1 implementation (2009–2010) 89.1 

Net change from baseline to Y1 +31.3 

Note: Comparable data not available for Berkshire JSHS. 

Although the evaluation team does not have three years of grade promotion data for Du Bois HS, 

the school did report SY 2009–2010 promotion data for all incoming ninth graders and ninth 

graders who participated in the FUTURES Works program. Although the overall promotion rate 

for first-time ninth-grade students at Du Bois HS is relatively low (58.8 percent), the promotion 

rate was much higher for students who participated in the grant-funded FUTURES Works 

program (70.6 percent). The nearly 12 percentage-point difference in promotion rate for 

FUTURES participants speaks to the value-added of grant-funded case management and support 

services. 

Almost all of first-time ninth graders who are “not promoted” are retained at the same school or 

at another school in the district as “repeating ninth graders.” A certain percentage of these 

students, however, do not re-enroll for the following year at any SDP school. For SY 2009– 

2010, the percentage of failing first-time ninth grade students who did not enroll in SDP ranged 

from 3.2 percentage points at Germantown HS to 11.8 percentage points at University City HS. 

VII-20 
Students who do not re-enroll at a SDP school either transfer to schools in other districts (i.e. 

charter schools) or drop out of school altogether. 

Exhibit VII-8 shows promotion data for students at SDP schools who are repeating the ninth 

grade (i.e. students that are in their second year of ninth grade). As illustrated in the exhibit, the 

number of repeat ninth graders decreased at all of the schools in SY 2009–2010 when compared 

to the baseline year. The reduction in the number repeating ninth graders was particularly 

pronounced in schools that implemented on-site alternative programs such as OASIS and 

Twilight Schools. 

Although promotion rates are considerably lower for students repeating the ninth grade than they 

are for first-time ninth graders, a number of schools made significant progress with this 

population. Five of the seven SDP schools increased the percentage of repeating ninth graders 

promoted to the tenth grade, with a few schools increasing this rate by 20 percentage points or 

more. Only at Germantown HS was there a decline in the percentage of repeating ninth-grade 

students promoted to the tenth grade. Perhaps more significantly, almost all SDP schools 

reduced the percentage of repeat ninth-grade students who did not re-enroll, decreasing potential 

dropouts by 4–28 percentage points, depending on the school. This finding, of course, is 

tempered by the fact that most schools had diverted a high number of repeating ninth-grade 

students to alternative programs. 

Exhibit VII-8: 

Changes in the Percentage of Repeat Ninth-Grade Students 

Promoted to the Tenth Grade at SDP schools 

Percentage of Repeat Ninth-Grade Students: Number of 

Repeating Ninth- Who Do Not 

School Grade Students Promoted Retained Re-Enroll 

Bartram HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 239 49.4 

-7.2
 

Du Bois HS
 

Baseline (2007–2008) 91 20.9 79.1 Not available 

Y1 implementation (2009– 127 33.9 53.5 12.6 2010) 

Net Change +36
 +13.0 -25.6 Not available 

37.2 13.4 

Y1 implementation (2009– 

2010) 45 48.9 8.9 42.2 

Net Change -194 +11.7 -4.5 

VII-21 
Number of 

Repeating NinthSchool Grade Students 

FitzSimons HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 22 

Y1 implementation (2009– 13

2010) 

Net Change -9 

Baseline (2007–2008) 145 

Y1 implementation (2009– 

2010) 126 

Net Change -19 

Baseline (2007–2008) 307 

Y1 implementation (2009– 122 2010) 

Net Change -185
 

Baseline (2007–2008) 221 

Y1 implementation (2009– 11 2010) 

Net Change -210
 

Baseline (2007–2008) 125 

Y1 implementation (2009– 

2010) 59 

Net Change -66 

Percentage of Repeat Ninth-Grade Students: 

Who Do Not 

Promoted Retained Re-Enroll 

22.7 18.2 59.1 

69.2 30.8 0 

+46.5 -18.2
 -28.3 

36.1 7.5 56.4 

33.1 14.3 52.4 

-3.0 +6.8 -4.0 

29.7 23.8 46.5 

42.3 25.4 31.9 

+12.6 +1.6 -14.6 

25.8 29.4 44.8 

45.5 27.3 27.3 

+19.7 -2.1 -17.5 

28.8 23.2 48.0 

28.8 18.6 66.1 

0 -4.6 +18.1 

25.3 27.7 47.0 

50.0 7.1 42.8 

Germantown HS 

Lincoln HS 

Overbrook HS 

University City HS 

West Philadelphia HS 

Baseline (2007–2008) 166 

Y1 implementation (2009– 28 2010) 

Net Change -138 +24.7 -20.6 -4.2 

VII-22 
 

 

 

University City HS is unusual in that it experienced an increase of 18 percentage points in the 

number of repeating ninth-grade students who did not re-enroll. As discussed previously, 

University City HS also had a low promotion rate among first-time ninth-grade students. The 

low promotion and retention percentages may be due to the uncertainty created by the transition 

of University City HS into a “promise academy.” As described in Chapter II and Chapter IV, 

teachers and students at University City HS knew as of spring 2010 that, as part of the 

restructuring process at the school, at least 50 percent of teachers would lose their jobs at the end 

of the school year. The uncertainty created by this transition contributed to low morale among 

teachers and students at the school, and may be partially responsible for higher failure rates 

among students. Students with low morale may have decided to change school districts or to 

drop out of school rather than to return to University City HS. 

Academic Gains 

A central goal of the MEES grants is to increase the percentage of students testing at grade level 

and the percentage of students who are no longer basic-skills deficient at the target schools. 

Eight of the schools are using the Gates Macginitie Reading Test (GMRT) to assess changes in 

reading and a Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) to assess ninth-grade math scores, 

while Berkshire JSHS is using Star Testing. In Philadelphia, incoming ninth-grade students took 

a pre-test in October of 2009 and the post-test a year later, in October 2010. Initially, SDP 

schools tested students in May of 2010, but SDP district staff said that the tests had a very high 

non-completion rate, making them difficult to score. An SDP staff member attributes the noncompletion rate to testing burnout among students, who take multiple diagnostic tests throughout 

the school year. After consulting with DOL, SDP staff members decided that pre- and post-tests 

should be administered once a year in October in order to minimize the testing burden on schools 

and students. Although the new testing schedule minimizes the burden on students, it introduces 

the challenge of “summer learning loss” and also increases the chance that students will have left 

school prior to completing a post-test.14 

As a result of the new testing schedule, the evaluation does not have access to consistent data on 

the reading and math achievement of ninth graders for seven of the nine schools. We have some 

achievement data for Du Bois HS and Berkshire JSHS, but these are incomplete because neither 

14 Research indicates students lose, on average, three months of math learning and two months of reading 

achievement during the summer. Low-SES students lose more learning than high-SES students. See, for 

example: Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). “The effects of summer 

vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review.” Review of Educational Research, 

66, 227–268. 

VII-23 
 

 

 

of these schools has submitted formal achievement scores through the MIS system. The data that 

we do have are highlighted below. 

	 Berkshire JSHS met its goals for math and English. The performance goal for 

Berkshire JSHS is that 50 percent of accountable students15 make Normal Curve 

Equivalent (NCE) gains on the STAR Test. Of 121 accountable students, 64 

percent achieved NCE gains in reading and 73 percent achieved NCE gains in 

math. A secondary performance goal for Berkshire JSHS is that 50 percent of 

students make appropriate progress, which is defined by a two-percentage-point 

gain on the STAR test for every 20 days of attendance at the school. Berkshire 

JSHS met this goal, with 56 percent of accountable students making appropriate 

progress in English and 68 percent making appropriate progress in Math. 

	 Du Bois HS shows academic gains among incoming ninth graders in reading 

and math. The results of the GMRT English test of incoming ninth graders were 

mixed, with 30.2 percent of students posting gains of at least a grade level and 

44.2 percent showing gains of at least half a grade level. The scores on the CTBS 

math test were more positive. A full 80.5 percent of students showed gains on the 

CTBS test, with 53.7 percent gaining at least one grade level and 36.6 percent 

gaining at least a grade level and a half. 

A final source of academic performance data is the standardized test scores that states use to 

track adequate yearly progress. In SDP, eleventh graders take Pennsylvania System of School 

Assessment (PSSA) tests to track academic progress. In BCPS, students take Maryland Student 

Assessment (MSA) in English 2 and Algebra. The results of tests from the SDP schools and Du 

Bois HS are not comparable because the tests are completely different. Exhibit VII-9 highlights 

two years of standardized test data for schools, from the pre-grant baseline year (SY 2007–2008) 

and the first year of implementation (SY 2009–2010). The exhibit only includes data on students 

who tested “advanced or proficient.” All other students within the school tested at the remedial 

levels of “basic or below basic.” Data for all SDP schools are included in the chart as a source of 

comparison. 

15 Berkshire JSHS is not accountable for students who (1) have been attending Berkshire JSHS for less than 60 

days or (2) are discharged from court or placement agency without prior notice. 

VII-24 
Exhibit VII-9: 

Percent of Students Proficient or Advanced in Math and Reading, 

Baseline Year (SY 2007–2008) and Year One of Implementation (SY 2009–2010) 

It is important to note that the PSSA and MSA tests are administered to eleventh-grade students 

at the SDP schools and tenth-grade students at Du Bois HS. In each case, the students taking the 

tests in SY 2009–2010 are not in the primary target populations for grant services, though all 

schools used the grant to fund some “test-prep” services for these students. The tests provide 

VII-25 
insight into general achievement trends at each of the schools, but are not a useful tool at this 

point for assessing the influence of grant services. Key observations from the exhibit are as 

follows: 

	 Academic performance at the SDP grant-funded schools remains very low. 

Of the Philadelphia schools, Lincoln HS has the highest PSSA scores. This may 

be due, in part, to the more socioeconomically diverse student body at Lincoln 

HS. The two schools facing the most academic challenges are West Philadelphia 

HS and University City HS, both of which were identified for restructuring under 

SDP’s Renaissance Schools program—primarily due to their low standardized 

test scores. 

	 Du Bois HS is approaching the BCPS average in math but remains farther 

behind this average in English. Du Bois HS is less than ten percentage points 

below the BCPS average of 64.9 percent proficiency in math, but is still more 

than thirty percentage points below the BCPS average of 73.2 proficiency in 

English. 

	 Overall, the standardized test data are mixed, with some schools showing 

small improvements and other schools showing declines. Both Bartram HS 

and Overbrook HS show some test score improvement in SY 2009–2010. 

Germantown HS had a slight decrease in scores, while most other schools had 

mixed results (e.g., increase in math proficiency, but a corresponding decrease in 

English). 

The data on academic performance illustrate the challenges that schools are facing. While there 

is some evidence that individual programs are working, school-wide gains in academic 

performance are slow to materialize. However, as discussed in the model of school change at the 

beginning of this chapter, academic gains (as measured by standardized tests) typically lag 

behind shifts in behavior, attendance, and course completion and promotion. Thus, the 

improvements in climate, ninth grade attendance, and ninth grade promotion discussed in this 

chapter are promising signs that many of the schools are moving in the right direction. 

Changes in School Culture 

This school is working better as a comprehensive high school. There is an 

overall feeling of a team, and there is a strong leadership team that is 

supportive...the climate is under control. There is a focus on getting better 

and improving instruction, and teachers are interested in improving their 

craft. 

- School staff member, West Philadelphia HS 

Grantees are seeking to make lasting improvements in school culture by investing in professional 

development for teachers, creating vehicles for collective decision-making (such as the 

Turnaround Team), creating common planning time and small learning communities, and 

VII-26 
 

 

 

 

instituting early warning data systems to identify students at risk of dropping out. The desired 

end goal is a culture where administrators, teachers, and non-teaching school staff members 

communicate regularly about student achievement, use data to pinpoint students’ needs, and 

work collaboratively to improve the quality of teaching and raise academic achievement. In this 

section, we discuss signs that schools are adopting two key practices characteristic of highperforming high-poverty schools: use of student data and school-wide collaboration. 

Use of Student Data 

Research on effective school turnaround and the practices of effective high-poverty-area schools 

consistently point to the key role that analysis of student data plays in identifying and addressing 

students’ academic and behavioral needs.16 During the first full year of grant implementation, all 

of the schools began using student data to (1) strategically identify and intervene on behalf of atrisk students and (2) strategize as to how to improve the effectiveness of instruction. All schools, 

with the exception of Berkshire JSHS, have identified students on the Early Warning Indicator 

(EWI) list and are using diagnostic tests to monitor student achievement. The following are 

examples of how schools are using student data. 

	 Du Bois HS and West Philadelphia HS are working closely with Talent 

Development High School (TDHS) staff in order to guide teachers through 

the use of data. At Du Bois HS, for instance, TDHS professional development 

staff members hold meetings with teachers where they (1) use test scores to 

identify students who need more support and create action plans for those students 

and (2) revisit students’ exam grades to ensure that they accurately reflect student 

success. 

	 University City HS expanded the capacity of teachers and staff to access 

student data and to reach out to students on the EWI list. School leaders are 

using Google Docs to post and share student data in a private online environment, 

so that teachers and administrators can access data on students from anywhere. 

This last year, University City staff members arranged meetings with parents of 

every student on the EWI list in order to problem-solve with parents about how to 

increase these students’ attendance and academic engagement. 

	 Teachers in the ninth grade academy at Bartram HS closely examined data 

on incoming ninth-grade students in order to identify students in need of 

special support. Teachers examined PSSA test scores, academics, and 

attendance data for incoming students, and then updated the information on 

16	 See for example: Christman, J. (2009). Effective Organizational Practices for Middle and High School 

Grades: A Qualitative Study of what is helping Philadelphia Students Succeed in Grades Six through Twelve. 

Prepared by Research in Action for the Accountability Review Council. Retrieved on September 17, from: 

http://pdf.researchforaction.org/rfapdf/publication/pdf_file/555/Christman_J_Effective_Organizational_Practices 

_for_Middle_and_High_School_Grades.pdf 

VII-27 
 

 

students on a quarterly basis. Teachers used the data to track student progress and 

make sure that students having a difficult time adjusting to high school received 

the support that they needed. 

Although all the school leaders have made progress in using data strategically, several indicated 

that they felt pulled in multiple directions, and often lacked the capacity to give the data its 

proper attention. It is one thing to gather and post data on EWI status and achievement and 

another to understand what implications the data have for (1) allocation of resources within the 

school and (2) instruction. SDP schools are addressing this lack of capacity by hiring data 

specialists in SY 2010–2011, whose responsibility it will be to help guide the schools in their 

analysis and use of data. 

School-wide Collaboration 

Research on effective high-poverty-area schools consistently finds that collaboration and shared 

responsibility for achievement are essential to their success.17 Effective schools spread 

leadership across multiple actors, create vehicles for teacher input, and ensure that teachers have 

opportunities to share information on individual students and on best practices. As described 

below, schools have created a number of different vehicles for school-wide collaboration. 

	 The TT committee and subcommittees are key vehicles for collective 

leadership and decision-making, as is the Teacher Leadership Team at 

Berkshire JSHS. DuBois HS is an example of a school with a very active TT; it 

includes teachers, school staff members, and all of the grant partners. The TT at 

Du Bois HS meets monthly and at each meeting, partners present on the status of 

their programs and problem-solve about implementation challenges. Although 

the TT at many schools does not meet as regularly it does at Du Bois HS, the TT 

subcommittees at other schools have been responsible for shaping the design of 

core grant-funded programs, such as the mentoring and summer bridge programs. 

At Berkshire JSHS a Teacher Leadership Team plays a key role in helping to 

support new teachers and adapt core programs. 

	 Common Planning Time (CPT) is providing opportunities for teachers to 

collaborate on lesson plans, discuss individual students, and observe one 

another’s practices. With the exception of Berkshire JSHS, all of the schools 

have created CPT for teachers. Overbrook HS is an example of a school where 

CPT is used very effectively. At Overbrook HS, instructional coaches help to 

structure CPT, making sure that there is a clear agenda and schedule that helps 

teachers to make effective use of the time. Across schools, teachers report that 

CPT is helping them to think strategically about the needs of students who are 

17 Ibid. 

VII-28 
having difficulties, and use the appropriate supportive services to help the 

students, whether it be connecting the student to a case worker or a mentor. 

	 Case management strategies, such as the Student Support Team (SST) at Du 

Bois HS, are helping to create wraparound services for students and a 

collective sense of responsibility for monitoring student behavior. The SST is 

an interdisciplinary team at Dubois HS that provides support and referrals to 

students with behavior and attendance issues. The SDP schools have a 

Comprehensive Student Assistance Process (CSAP) that engages teachers in 

teams to identify students with academic or behavioral difficulties and to develop 

plans to address those students’ needs. Although this process occurred prior to 

the grant, the CPT time has provided a regularly weekly time when all teachers 

can engage in the CSAP process. 

	 The Student Success Centers (SSCs) at SDP schools are creating place-based 

“hubs” where students can access a range of support services within the 

school. In many ways, the SSCs are acting as “one-stop” centers, where students 

can access a range of community-based services and supports at the school. 

Although not all teachers and school staff are knowledgeable about SSC services, 

SSC staff members continue to work on making connections with school staff and 

on creating “cohesive” centers that are well integrated into the fabric of the 

schools. 

School-wide collaboration is important, not only because it helps to create a more cohesive 

support structure for students, but also because it helps to build a professional community of 

teachers. Overall, teachers said that the interventions described above helped them to feel more 

supported, validated, and less isolated with the challenges that they face in the classroom. This 

is particularly true at schools like Overbrook HS and Du Bois HS, where the school principal is 

clearly invested in the collaborative process and respectful of teachers’ time and input. 

Summary of Findings 

This chapter summarizes preliminary evidence of school change at the MEES schools. Schools 

are at the very beginning stages of grant implementation, and thus the changes recorded in this 

chapter are very preliminary and may reflect typical fluctuations in behavior, attendance, and 

achievement rather than contributions of the MEES grant. With this said, the majority of schools 

show small to moderate improvements in key parameters, such as ninth-grade attendance, ninthgrade promotion, and school climate. Exhibit VII-10 provides an overview of the evidence of 

school change discussed in this chapter. 

VII-29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit VII-10: 

Summary of Evidence of School Change 

Between Baseline Year (SY 2007–2008) and Year One of Implementation (SY 2009–2010) Bartram HS Berkshire JSHS Du Bois HS FitzSimons HS Germantown HS Lincoln HS Overbrook HS University City HS West Philadelphia HSNumber of Schools that Show Positive 

Change 

Changes in School Climate 

Increased Average Daily Attendance (ADA)  **      6 

Increased ADA for ninth-grade students        **  5 

Decreased percentage of students who 

miss 54 or more days 

 **      6 

Decreased the rate of all incidents involving 

suspension, expulsion, or arrest (incident 

rate) 

 ** 1     6 

Decreased number of severe incidents that 

count towards PDS status 

     5 

Decreased number of students involved in 

the juvenile justice system (i.e. arrests) 

       5 

Changes in Academic Performance 

Decreased number of students failing three 

or more subjects 

 **        7 

Decreased failure rate for English       6 

Decreased failure rate for math   **   4 

Decreased rate of first-time ninth graders 

failing (i.e. increase promotion rate) 

 **      6 

Decreased rate of repeating ninth-grade 

students failing for another year (i.e. 

increase promotion rate) 

 **      6 

Changes in School Culture 

Increased use of student data for decisionmaking 

     5 

Increased school wide-collaboration          9 

Proportion of available data fields where 

school shows positive change 

.92 .80 .70 .62 .46 .62 .77 .62 1.0 

1 Baseline arrest data was not available for Du Bois HS, but they reported decreases in suspensions and expulsions. 

Checkmark indicates school has shown positive change in this field, even if very small. 

** Data not available for analysis at time report was written. 

VII-30 
The Model for School Change presented at the beginning of this chapter indicates that shifts in 

attendance and behavior commonly precede improvements in academic test scores. Although 

the shifts in overall ADA are very small, several schools had relatively large increases in ninthgrade attendance. For instance, Overbrook HS showed an increase of 8.6 percentage points in 

ninth-grade ADA. Seven schools were able to bring down the overall incident rate, which is a 

combined rate that includes the rate of suspension, expulsion, and arrest. Among the schools, 

Berkshire JSHS, Du Bois HS, West Philadelphia HS, and Germantown HS experienced the most 

marked improvements in climate. Since the grant was awarded in June 2008, these four schools, 

along with University City HS, have been removed from the persistently dangerous list. 

Although schools have work yet to do on improving attendance, the reduction in violent 

incidents and suspensions described in this chapter are signs that the schools are becoming more 

conducive to both attendance and learning. 

In addition to shifts in climate and behavior, over half of the schools made progress in increasing 

rates of course completion and ninth-grade promotion. The promotion rate for first-time ninth 

graders increased at six of the seven SDP schools, with an increase of 17 to 30 percentage points 

per school. Similarly, five of the seven SDP schools increased the percentage of repeating ninth 

graders promoted to the tenth grade. These changes represent a sizable increase in the number of 

ninth graders promoted to the tenth grade, an important measure of school performance. 

Challenges Documenting and Achieving Outcomes 

The data captured in this chapter show evidence of positive school change on indicators such as 

ninth-grade attendance, school climate, and ninth-grade promotion. School change with regard 

to academic indicators, however, is more mixed and helps to illustrate the challenges facing 

school stakeholders as they work to improve student test scores. 

	 Administering tests that are an accurate measure of students’ ability is 

difficult in a “test heavy” environment. Across the schools, staff members 

spoke of the effects of “testing burnout,” which resulted in high numbers of tests 

that are incomplete or are an inaccurate measure of students’ ability. Students are 

tested so much that they often do not take the tests seriously. For instance, in 

SDP, some school administrators described that almost every student tested into 

the remedial corrective reading and math program, even ninth-grade students who 

they anticipated would go into advanced classes, such as Geometry.
 

	 Due to the high mobility of the population, schools are often testing students 

who are new to the school and who have not received a full range of services. 

As described in Chapter II, the MEES schools are generally characterized by a 

high transfer rate. Many students who have failed to succeed in other settings 

transfer into the target schools mid-way through a semester. The success or 

failure of these students factors into the schools’ key outcome measures. 

VII-31 
	 Students who are chronically absent, yet remain on the enrollment rolls, 

negatively influence the schools’ outcomes. For instance, staff at Du Bois HS 

reports that the school’s declining ADA is due in large part to students who are 

“missing,” meaning that school staff do not know how to contact them or where 

they are. As a staff member said, “They may be in Florida, but we still have them
 

on our rolls.” 

	 Many students at MEES schools lack basic skills and face challenges that 

impede their learning. In addition to coming into high school with weak 

academic preparation, many students at the MEES schools have worries and 

responsibilities that interfere with their ability to focus in school, including caring 

for younger siblings, helping to support their families, exposure to violence, or 

drug and alcohol addiction. One teacher described the challenges faced by 

students: 

A lot of our kids have serious deficits. They just don’t have basic skills. 

The corrective program is here because they don’t know how to add or 

subtract or use negative numbers... They have a poor ability to remember 

what you teach them. A week goes by and they ask the same questions. A 

lot of them have traumatic lives that get in the way of them remembering 

things. 

Interviews with school staff members indicate that the most important lesson learned so far is 

that it is essential that reforms have an opportunity to take hold as schools move into the second 

year of grant implementation. Teachers and staff members stated that it is frustrating to work in 

an environment where there are multiple changes each year, because “when you see wholesale 

changes every year, it is difficult to see growth.” There are many new programs at each of the 

schools, and key stakeholders agree that one priority for SY 2010–2011 should be to focus on 

execution and follow-through of existing reforms, rather than on the creation of new programs. 

We discuss this theme further in the chapter that follows, as it summarizes key accomplishments, 

challenges, and the implications of findings for schools and school districts. 

VII-32 
VIII. CONCLUSION 

This Early Implementation Report presents findings from the first year of MEES grant 

implementation (SY 2009-2010). It outlines grant budgets and staffing, describes the 

characteristics of the core interventions that grantees are adopting, and analyzes changes in 

school climate, academic performance, and school culture at each of the grant-funded schools. 

In this final chapter, we summarize the core accomplishments of the schools in the first year of 

grant implementation and note the common challenges that slowed the pace of implementation. 

We conclude by highlighting the implications of the core findings of this report for the MEES 

schools and the grant-funded school districts. 

Key Accomplishments 

MEES schools have made significant progress in the first year of grant implementation. During 

this period, schools have mobilized core stakeholders within the schools and in their 

communities, formed TT committees, and designed multiple programs and educational strategies 

that are new to their schools. Below we summarize key accomplishments related to grant 

implementation, educational strategies, mentoring and school climate strategies, employment and 

case management strategies, and school change. Note that all these accomplishments were 

discussed in detail in previous chapters. 

Grant Implementation 

	 As of May 2010, schools had contracted with a variety of providers to 

provide grant services. All schools had contracted with employment and case 

management providers, whose role is to operate employment centers at the 

schools, identify and match students for internships, provide college access 

services, and also provide counseling and support services. All schools also 

identified mentoring providers, whose role is to identify and match mentees and 

peer mentors and also help to screen and monitor adult mentors. Further, five of 

the nine schools contracted with educational providers to provide supplemental 

educational services, such as tutoring or SAT preparation. Although three schools 

planned to develop contracts with providers of school climate interventions, these 

services had not yet launched at the end of SY 2009–2010. 

VIII-1 
	 All schools are engaged in extensive capacity building. Throughout the first 

year of grant implementation, schools contracted with a variety of different 

technical assistance providers. Many schools received guidance from the United 

Way in preparing and planning their mentoring programs, and most received 

training from American Institutes for Research (AIR) on climate-related 

interventions. Two schools worked closely with Talent Development High 

Schools to support the development of Ninth Grade Academies and to raise 

academic standards. In Philadelphia, grant-funded staff received extensive TA in 

grant administration and in program planning from the School District of 

Philadelphia (SDP). Teachers at each of the schools also received extensive 

professional development as part of the grant. 

	 The schools hired a total of 140 full-time staff members and 62 part-time 

staff members to manage and implement programs under the MEES grant. 

These staff members worked to push forward grant-funded interventions that map 

to each of the MEES strategies. 

	 More staff members were hired for education strategies than for any 

other strategy. The vast majority of the educational staff persons 

hired are teachers; they were hired primarily to reduce class sizes and 

provide additional remedial support to students. 

	 Case management and employment strategies are the second most 

heavily staffed strategy. Most of these staff members work out of the 

Student Success Centers in the SDP and/or provide counseling and 

support services. 

	 Compared to other strategies, the schools hired fewer staff members 

to implement mentoring and school climate strategies, though all 

schools have hired staff members who are providing these services. 

Educational Strategies 

	 Seven schools dramatically reduced the student-to-teacher ratio. In the first 

year of grant implementation, the student-to-teacher ratio fell to well below 20 to 

1 at all the SDP schools. The reduction in the student-to-teacher ratio at SDP 

schools is due to the additional staff members hired by the MEES grant and to an 

influx of additional SDP funding for teachers. School staff members report that 

the increased staffing has contributed to an improved climate at many schools. In 

contrast to SDP schools, Du Bois HS experienced other funding cuts that led to 

increases in the student-to-teacher ratio and reductions in the budget. The MEES 

funding allowed Berkshire’s student-to-teacher ratio to remain low. 

	 All schools launched a variety of grant-funded educational interventions, 

with a focus on providing remedial support and credit retrieval. Six of the 

schools are using grant funds to provide remedial support to ninth grade students 

and seven are providing credit retrieval services to students who have fallen 

behind academically. All of the schools have purchased instructional supports, 

such as online curricula, in order to increase academic achievement. 

VIII-2 
 

 

 

 

	 Six out of the nine schools have developed Ninth Grade Academies. A Ninth 

Grade Academy is a self-contained school-within-a-school, organized around 

interdisciplinary teacher teams that share the same students and have common 

daily planning time. The Ninth Grade Academies generally include only 

incoming ninth graders, and enrollment varies from a low of 84 at Du Bois HS to 

a high of 521 at Lincoln HS. Ninth Grade Academies are designed to provide 

personalized learning communities with small classes and specialized curricular 

supports and transitional courses. Although the cohesiveness of the Ninth Grade 

Academies vary by school, all six schools are making progress in creating smaller 

environments for incoming ninth-grade students. 

	 All schools operated summer programs, including both summer bridge 

programs and summer school. All of the Philadelphia-based schools created 

programs to serve incoming ninth graders and eighth graders who needed to earn 

additional credits in order to progress to the ninth grade. The Du Bois HS 

program served returning ninth graders and credit-deficient students in a 

traditional summer school format. 

Mentoring and School Climate Strategies 

	 All schools have launched mentoring programs. Although mentoring programs 

were slow to start, many schools made significant progress towards launching the 

program in the spring of 2010. All schools have hired mentoring contractors and 

hired mentoring staff. At the time of the third site visit, only Berkshire JSHS and 

West Philadelphia HS had not recruited mentees to their programs. Across the 

other seven schools, over 200 mentees had been recruited. With the exception of 

Berkshire JSHS, schools had made progress with the adult mentoring piece of the 

program, having recruited 127 adult mentors, most of whom are school staff 

members. The seven SDP schools had also recruited 116 peer mentors.1 School 

staff members anticipate that the mentoring programs will flourish and grow in 

the 2010–2011 school year. 

	 Five schools hired dedicated climate staff members and most have launched 

at least one school climate intervention. School climate interventions include 

incentive programs for positive behavior, professional development for staff, peer 

mediation programs, in-school suspension programs, and a leadership program 

called Rites of Passage. 

Employment and Case Management Strategies 

	 Seven schools launched or expanded Student Success Centers (SSCs). SSCs 

are employment and case management centers that bring together a variety of 

student services. In the first year of grant implementation, schools selected 

providers for the SSCs and the providers hired key staff persons to operate the 

Note that Du Bois HS and Berkshire JSHS have not recruited peer mentors because these two schools’ 

mentoring programs do not have peer mentoring dimensions. 

VIII-3 

1 
centers. The schools played a key role in developing the facilities for the SSCs, 

by identifying and furnishing the space and overseeing facilities improvements 

related to installation of phone lines and computer hook-ups. SSC services 

reached from 50 to 86 percent of the entire student population at target schools. 

Students and staff members at the schools view the centers very positively, as 

“safe” places that are the “hubs” of the schools. 

	 All schools provided a range of grant-funded career development and 

exploration services. Career development and exploration activities include 

career and job shadow days, individual career advising, and job preparation 

workshops on issues such as resume development and interviewing skills. At 

SDP schools these services are provided through the SSC, and the proportion of 

all students at the school reached through these efforts ranged from 15 percent at 

University City HS to 69 percent at Overbrook HS. At Du Bois HS and Berkshire 

JSHS these services are offered through the Career Connections program and the 

Vocational Academy, respectively. 

	 Seven schools used grant funds to provide college access services. College 

access services include college exposure activities (i.e. college visits), college 

application assistance, and financial aid counseling. The proportion of the entire 

student population at these schools that received college access services ranged 

from 12 percent at University City HS to 44 percent at Germantown HS. Across 

all schools, the most common type of assistance that students received was 

assistance in preparing college applications, which included one-on-one 

assistance with filling out the application, registering for the SAT/ACT, writing 

and editing college essays, and developing a post-secondary plan. 

	 All schools launched case management services. Case management, provided 

by an individual or a team of professionals, offers students therapeutic, 

behavioral, and crisis intervention support. Through their case management 

programs, schools offered individual counseling, group counseling, and 

attendance and behavioral interventions. The proportion of students who received 

case management ranged from six percent at Germantown HS to 100 percent at 

Berkshire JSHS. According to school staff members and students, case 

management staff members play key roles in reaching students at risk of dropout 

and helping to personalize the school environment. 

Evidence of School Change 

	 The majority of schools show improvements in student behavior and climate, 

with reduced numbers of serious incidents and suspensions. Five schools 

reduced the number of serious incidents and six schools reduced the suspension 

rate. Three of the MEES schools were removed from the PDS list at the end of 

the first year of grant implementation, lowering the total number of schools on the 

list to four. School staff members attribute the improvements in behavior and 

climate to the reduced student-to-teacher ratio and to the increased services at the 

schools. 

VIII-4 
	 The majority of schools show improvements in ninth-grade attendance and 

ninth-grade promotion. Five schools showed gains in attendance, and although 

gains in overall attendance were very small, gains in ninth-grade attendance were 

generally higher. Overbrook HS, for instance, increased ninth-grade attendance 

by more than eight percent. Six of the seven SDP schools significantly increased 

the percentage of first-time ninth graders promoted to the tenth grade, increasing 

the promotion rate for these students from 17 to 30 percentage points per school. 

School staff members attribute improvements to ninth grade interventions, such as 

the ninth grade academy and the additional instructional supports. 

	 Most schools increased their strategic use of student data and created 

vehicles for school-wide collaboration. All of the schools have worked to 

develop early indicators of students who are at risk. At least five schools are 

using this data strategically to shape the services they are providing to students 

and to inform teacher professional development. Additionally, all schools have 

created vehicles, such as common planning time, case management teams, and 

leadership teams, for increasing the level of coordination and collaboration of 

school staff members. Issues related to a lack of teacher and staff buy-in for the 

initiative—common in the planning year—became less of an issue in the first year 

of implementation as the benefits of the grant became more apparent. 

The accomplishments summarized above show the considerable strides that schools have made 

in the first year of grant implementation. Schools have launched most of the major grant-funded 

interventions, and they have done so with some early evidence of success. Almost all of the 

remaining interventions, which include those designed to enhance school climate and strengthen 

career academies, will be launched in the early part of the 2010–2011 school year. 

Key Challenges 

Although schools accomplished a great deal in the first year of grant implementation, they also 

faced a number of implementation challenges. In this section, we highlight overarching 

challenges faced by the schools as they sought to implement the full range of grant reforms. 

Note that these challenges are also presented in more detail throughout this report. 

	 Services were slow to launch at SDP schools due to delays in the contract 

approval process. As a result of delays in the contract approval process, most 

contractors were not able to get started in the schools until midway through the 

first year of grant implementation (SY 2009–2010). In the case of mentoring and 

school climate providers, contracts were not approved until late May 2010. 

	 The Renaissance Schools initiative changed the context for grant 

implementation at two schools. In spring 2010, SDP selected West Philadelphia 

HS and University City HS to be “Renaissance Schools,” which means they 

would be restructured and would experience changes in leadership and teaching 

staff. This announcement complicated grant implementation at these sites. Most 

stakeholders at these schools felt demoralized by the announcement, particularly 

VIII-5 
 

in light of what they perceived to be improvements. In addition, because teachers 

did not know if they would be working at these schools in the 2010–2011 school 

year, it was difficult to recruit them to work in grant-funded programs such as 

mentoring. Both of these schools experienced a very large turnover in the 

teaching staff at the end of SY 2009–2011, even though SDP eventually 

postponed the restructuring process at West Philadelphia HS to SY 2011–2012. 

	 Two schools experienced shifts in funding that affected implementation of 

some MEES-related activities. Berkshire JSHS and Du Bois HS each had 

decreases in their overall budgets in SY 2009–2010. Although the budget cuts 

were counteracted to some degree by the infusion of MEES grant funds, they 

nevertheless affected grant implementation. Berkshire JSHS lost a major funding 

stream from New York State Department of Education in SY 2009-2010 that 

resulted in staff having to consolidate and streamline grant-funded programs; the 

school folded its work skills class into the vocational academy and required 

members of its teacher leadership committee to start teaching classes again. 

	 At some schools, contracted service providers had difficulty integrating 

smoothly into the school community. Most contracted staff members were 

relatively new to the schools, and thus had work to do in order to build 

relationships and market their programs to the rest of the school community. In 

many cases, this process went smoothly and staff reported a high level of 

coordination and communication. In a few cases, however, contractors indicated 

that there were turf issues between the grant-funded programs and the work of 

either school staff members or other contractors within the building. 

	 The presence of many different providers within the schools (e.g., for 

mentoring, climate, employment, and case management) makes it 

challenging for everyone to develop a sense of common purpose. Many 

individuals and organizations enter the school with their own agendas; even 

though these multiple agendas may not be at cross-purposes, they are not 

necessarily well aligned. One school leader said, “When you have contracts and 

subcontractors, they come with their own managers. There are separate 

directives.” To address this challenge, several schools are creating regular 

meetings where contractors, subcontractors, and school leaders can come together 

and reach a common understanding of grant goals, target population, and 

intervention strategies. 

	 Providers experienced difficulty designing and launching the mentoring 

program. The mentoring program was new to all of the grantee schools, and has 

been the most difficult of the programs to design and launch. 

	 Because of the unique residential nature of the school, Berkshire 

JSHS spent over a year working with TA providers to develop a 

mentoring program that could provide support to students while they 

are on the school campus and when they return to their home 

communities. The school hired 22 staff members, most on a per-diem 

basis, to recruit adult mentors in the home communities of students. 

VIII-6 
As of yet, however, not a single adult mentor has been recruited and 

no students have been matched. 

	 Du Bois HS, which had difficulty identifying appropriate contractors 

for its mentoring program and has four different CBOs delivering 

these services, has so far identified only a small number of mentees. 

	 The SDP schools made progress in recruiting mentees, peer mentors, 

and school-based adult mentors. SDP schools, however, made little 

progress recruiting adult mentors from the community because (1) the 

screening process for community mentors is time-consuming; (2) 

many community members do not want to work with adolescents and 

are dissuaded by the “persistently dangerous” label carried by the 

schools; and (3) it is difficult to schedule times for working members 

of the community to meet with students during school hours. 

Implications of Findings 

Despite the challenges of the first year of grant implementation, school leaders, teachers, and 

staff members universally expressed excitement and optimism about the contributions of the 

grant. The effects of the MEES grants are evident at all the schools—in smaller class sizes, 

shared planning time for teachers, busy Student Success Centers, increased programs for creditdeficient students, and increased supportive services for students. Stakeholders generally credit 

the grant with causing positive school-wide changes, such as reduced violence and increased 

ninth-grade promotion. Universally, stakeholders are excited about moving into the second full 

year of grant implementation, because they believe that they are laying the groundwork for real 

change. 

It is apparent from the first year of grant implementation, however, that grant-funded 

interventions need time to develop and integrate into the cultures of the schools. The school 

districts move at a measured pace to approve contracts, make budget modifications, make facility 

improvements, and hire staff. It takes time for new contractors to develop the types of 

relationships with teachers and other school staff members that are necessary to launch 

programs. Similarly, some aspects of the grant program design, such as recruiting adult 

community mentors, are slow because they are inherently challenging. During the first year of 

implementation, the schools really just came to the precipice of full grant implementation, and 

measures of school change from the end of SY 2010–2011 will likely show more of the 

influences of grant-funded reforms. 

At this stage in reform process, the MEES schools also remain vulnerable to setbacks, 

particularly amidst shifts in leadership and staffing. For example, since SY 2007–2008, West 

Philadelphia HS has shown steady signs of improvement: increased student attendance, 

VIII-7 
improved student behavior, reduced violence, and increased rates of ninth-grade course 

completion and student promotion. In June 2010, however, the principal who had helped to 

nurture these positive changes was replaced, primarily due to low standardized test scores. 

Although it is unclear what ultimate impact the shift in leadership will have for West 

Philadelphia HS, news reports from early SY 2010–2011 indicate that the school has seen an 

increase in violence and arrests, particularly among ninth-grade students. Thus, it is not 

improbable that the path towards improved outcomes for many schools will not be linear, but 

will have some twists and turns along the way. 

The central implication of this report, therefore, is that it would be beneficial if schools were 

permitted in the second year of grant implementation to really invest in and develop the current 

MEES-funded reforms without the introduction of numerous additional directives for change. 

Given the current recession, all of the schools operate in a climate of uncertain resources, and 

have to adapt their services accordingly. SDP schools, however, also operate in an intense 

climate of reform, where there is something of a conveyer belt of good ideas coming from the 

district. Although most SDP ideas complement the goals of the grant, it is difficult for 

stakeholders to execute them well or follow through on plans in an environment where priorities 

frequently change. The second year of implementation really is a unique opportunity for schools 

to focus on improving the quality of services, and that focus would be diluted by attempts to 

launch new programs or learn new curricula. 

It is important to provide schools with this opportunity to focus on quality, because there are 

definitely signs that the schools are on the right track. There is a strong focus at most schools on 

creating integrated reform (rather than a series of separate programs), enhancing communication 

and collaboration, improving the quality of the teaching staff, and creating small learning 

communities and collaborative structures that will outlast the MEES funding stream. Some 

schools have developed early-warning systems that help them identify and intervene with 

students who are vulnerable to dropout, and some schools are using student data to inform 

professional development for teachers. In the first year of grant implementation, schools also 

made great progress towards deepening buy-in for systemic reform among teachers and parents. 

All of these signs indicate that schools are making steady progress towards achieving the larger 

goals of the MEES initiative. 

VIII-8 
Appendix A: 

Conceptual Framework 

A-1
 

Appendix A: 

Conceptual Framework 

A-3

Appendix B: 

Research Questions 

B-1
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B: 

Research Questions 

Context 

	 What contextual factors have been important for understanding the design, 

implementation and outcomes of the program? 

	 What are the relevant community factors, such as the seriousness of 

youth gangs and youth violent crime in the neighborhood surrounding 

the high school, the dropout rate, labor market conditions, general law 

enforcement climate? 

	 What are the relevant school factors, such as the history of the school 

and its relationship to parents and surrounding community? Existing 

academic reform, mentorship, case management, employment, 

violence prevention, or other dropout prevention strategies? 

	 What are the relevant individual factors, such as supportive families, 

peer groups and/or gang associations of participants? 

	 What are the relevant partner factors, such as the availability of 

mentoring programs, the history of faith-based and community 

organizations (FBCOs) and other service providers in the school and 

surrounding community? 

School Leadership 

	 What is the leadership structure of the school? 

	 What is the composition of the Turnaround Leadership Team at the 

school? What is its role in making decisions at the school and in 

implementing this grant? 

	 What is the role of the Turnaround Principal and how does this 

individual fit into the broader decision-making structure for the school? 

What is the role of the school district relative to school leaders in 

making key decisions about the school, such as hiring principals and 

teachers, deciding on core providers of services, allocating resources, 

developing curriculum, and scheduling classes? 

	 To what extent did the schools change leadership in their restructuring efforts? 

	 What are the specific “second-order” change skills that schools’ leaders need to 

effectively turnaround these low performing and persistently dangerous schools? 

	 To what extent do school leaders inspire and lead the school 

community to shift existing practices? What is the role of school 

leaders in motivating the school community to take on reform? 

B-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 To what extent are school leaders directly involved in the design and 

implementation of the reforms? 

	 To what extent are school leaders involved in monitoring the 

effectiveness of reforms and their impact on student learning? How 

effective are school leaders at providing feedback and adapting 

approaches to achieve the desired aims? 

	 What kind of support do school leaders have from the district office and 

community to effectively implement this grant? 

 What factors influenced leaders’ ability to gain support and buy-in? 

To what extent is there an incentive structure for school leaders to 

successfully turn their schools around? 

	 How do school leaders mobilize partners, including workforce development, 

youth development programs, and teachers’ unions to buy-in to this initiative? 

Design 

	 What was the grantee planning and design process? 

	 What is the scope of the project (key partners, structural shifts to the school day)? 

	 What is the nature of the project design and why were particular strategies 

chosen? 

	 What specific groups are targeted? 

	 What is the strategy/model for providing mentoring and case 

management?
 

	 What is the strategy/model for enhancing educational achievement 

and reducing the dropout rate and violence, overall and for targeted 

groups? 

	 What is the strategy/model for improving the school environment and 

student behavior, overall and for targeted groups? 

	 What is the strategy/model for providing employment services and 

internships to students? 

	 What is the strategy/model for providing professional development 

and capacity building support to teachers and other school staff? 

	 What indicators of success were developed for the project during the 

planning/design phase (e.g., for increasing participants’ math and reading scores, 

decreasing number of ninth grade dropouts, reducing school suspensions)? 

	 What initial plans for sustainability (after federal funds end) were developed 

during the design phase? 

	 How were appropriate partners or providers selected for participation in the 

program, including during the planning/design phase? 

B-4 
 

	 What is the leadership or management structure of the grant, including key staff 

and budget? What methods are used to manage the program and coordinate 

contracts among partners? 

	 What strategies do school leaders use to gathering input and buy-in on design 

elements from teachers, parents, and other school stakeholders? 

	 What were the challenges and effective strategies of the planning and design 

process? 

Partnerships 

	 Who are the key partners in this effort? How were they selected and mobilized? 

What are their specific roles in this project? 

	 What partnership arrangements have been established and how are resources 

being leveraged to achieve the grant’s objectives? 

	 What is the grantee’s relationship with partners, such as the local 

workforce system (One-Stop system), employers and corporations, 

and faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) providing 

various direct services (e.g., mentoring, case management, 

employment services, etc.)? 

	 To what extent are federal and non-federal leveraged resources being 

contributed to the program? 

	 What is the nature of the grantee’s referral system with partners to ensure that 

participants’ various needs are met? 

	 How well have these partnerships worked overall and how have they evolved over 

time? 

	 To what extent are these partnerships formalized (e.g., memoranda of 

understanding, letters of commitment, cost-sharing agreements, information 

sharing agreements, referral systems, etc.)? 

	 What have been the barriers and best practices for inter-partner communication 

and coordination (different philosophies toward youth, MIS issues, etc.)? 

Service Delivery/Implementation 

	 What is the quality of school and program leadership? 

	 What are the characteristics of students enrolled overall and in the targeted
 

interventions? 

	 How are youth recruited and/or identified for targeted services (e.g., using 

indicators such as chronic truancy, discipline problems, special education 

placement, low reading and math scores)? 

	 How effective are outreach and recruitment services? 

B-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

	 What types of basic intake services, such as assessments of needs and interests, 

are provided and how do they vary by participant-type? 

	 How is mentoring provided to participants, and by which specific provider(s)? 

	 How is case management provided to participants, and by which specific 

provider(s)? 

	 What is the full range of education, employment, anti-violence, mentorship, case 

management, and supportive services available to youth, how do they vary by 

status (e.g., youth who have been retained vs. those who have not, at-risk vs. 

adjudicated), and who delivers each service? 

	 Which services target the whole school? 

	 Which services target particular students? What intensive services are targeted 

for individual youth who present the greatest challenges? 

	 Which services are available to participants through the local One-Stop Career 

Center system? What One-Stop services are accessed? How many youth access 

them? 

	 To what extent do partners effectively coordinate education services with 

employment and workforce services?
 

	 How well do the services meet the needs of different participant-types (e.g., 

younger vs. older youth, adjudicated vs. at-risk)? 

	 What are the primary challenges in working in these schools? What are the 

facilitators? What practices are particularly effective? 

	 What strategies does the school use to promote high expectations of students and 

program participants? 

	 What strategies does the program use to ensure that staff are appropriately 

equipped to work with program participants (e.g., professional development, 

collaborative and or team teaching models)? 

	 What data collection and reporting procedures have been implemented by the 

grantee? What challenges have they faced in implementing the management 

information system (including reporting on those fields required by the DOL 

template)? 

	 What have been the most significant implementation issues that grantees and 

partners have faced? What strategies were used to overcome these challenges, 

and with what success? 

Outputs and Outcomes 

	 What proportion of participants take part in the various education, employment, 

violence prevention, mentoring, case management, and other services? What 

proportion complete particular services? 

	 What outcomes has the school achieved? Examples of outcomes to be examined 

include the rate of grade promotion and retention, school attendance, reading and 

B-6 
 

 

 

 

math gains, standardized test scores, and behavioral incidents such as suspensions 

and expulsions. 

 How do outcomes vary by different types of participants (e.g., younger youth vs. 

older youth)? 

 Have there been any significant, unanticipated outcomes? 

 To what extent are grantees able to effectively capture, track, and report 

outcomes, including those required by the DOL template? Major challenges? 

 What have been the school-level outcomes of the grant project? 

 Structural shifts in scheduling, program design, or staffing structure 

that facilitates enhanced outcomes? 

Professional climate for teachers and other school staff? Clear 

performance-based expectations of teachers?
 

 Formal mechanisms of communication with parents and other 

community stakeholders? 

	 What have been the partnership- and system-level outcomes of the grant project? 

 New or strengthened partnerships and service delivery system? 

 Leveraged funding? 

 Changes in system-level polices or practices to facilitate effective 

coordination and enhanced outcomes? 

 Concrete plans for sustainability of partnerships and service delivery 

system? For replicability district-wide? 

 How much variation is there in overall grantee performance after controlling for 

differences in local context and participant characteristics? 

 How do grantees that are successful differ from those that are not (e.g., in design, 

implementation, contextual factors)? 

B-7 

Appendix C: 

Demographic Data 

D-1
 

Appendix C: 

Demographic Data 

Grade level Gender Race/Ethnicity 

School African 

Year Total Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Male American Latino Asian White 

School District of Philadelphia 

2009-2010 163,064 13,946 13,160 11,272 10,700 51% 61.2% 17.6% 6.2% 13.3% 

John Bartram HS 2007-2008 1,687 566 425 215 288 51% 93% 1% 3% 2% 

2008-2009 1,514 464 381 281 195 50% 92% 1% 4% 2% 

2009-2010 1,388 351 369 254 269 50% 93% 1% 4% 1% 

FitzSimons HS 2007-2008 336 104 98 60 51 100% 99% 1% 0% 0% 2008-2009 290 76 54 58 46 100% 99% 1% 0% 1% 2009-2010 304 100 60 52 56 100% 99% 0% 0% 1% Germantown HS 2007-2008 1,399 375 398 226 188 52% 97% 1% 0% 1% 

2008-2009 1,364 416 319 218 198 53% 98% 1% 0% 1% 

2009-2010 1,251 254 307 228 217 52% 98% 2% 0% 0% 

Lincoln HS 2007-2008 2,194 688 469 379 253 53% 42% 16% 6% 35% 

2008-2009 2,114 644 469 381 236 54% 44% 18% 6% 32% 

2009-2010 1,921 628 432 361 272 54% 41% 18% 6% 34% 

Overbrook HS 2007-2008 2,070 503 536 363 352 52% 98% 1% 0% 0% 

C-3 
Grade level Gender Race/Ethnicity 

School African 

Year Total Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Male American Latino Asian White 

2008-2009 1,905 464 476 325 344 51% 98% 1% 0% 0% 

2009-2010 1,745 346 525 363 331 50% 98% 1% 0% 1% 

University City HS 2007-2008 1,450 432 405 297 245 52% 96% 2% 1% 0% 

2008-2009 1,176 323 297 235 230 53% 96% 2% 1% 1% 

2009-2010 872 163 233 166 210 53% 96% 1% 1% 1% 

West Philadelphia HS 2007-2008 1,207 403 272 205 88 56% 98% 1% 0% 0% 

2008-2009 1,132 268 275 218 130 52% 98% 1% 0% 0% 

2009-2010 969 249 215 181 184 53% 97% 1% 1% 1% 

Baltimore City Public Schools 

2009-2010 82,866 77291 6642 5596 4926 51% 87.8% 3.1% 0.9% 7.8% 

W.E.B. Du Bois 2007-2008 606 228 155 113 110 57% 96% 2% 0% 2% 

2008-2009 598 210 155 106 126 56% 96% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 

2009-2010 611 218 166 109 118 55% 95% 4% 0% 4% 

Berkshire JSHS2 

2007-2008 147 61 41 15 3 100% 58% 13% 1% 28% 

2008-2009 87 34 28 17 0 100% 59% 7% 0% 33% 

2009-2010 223 73 55 11 2 100% 48.9% 39.9% n/a 10.3% 

C-4 
1 Note: Enrollment for BCPS as of October 2010 

2 Note: Berkshire JSHS is the only school in the Berkshire Union Free School District (BUFSD) 

Sources: SDP:  Total enrollment, demographics: School District of Philadelphia http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/about/ 

Enrollment by grade, gender: Pennsylvania State Department of Education Enrollment Reports http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/commu

BCPSS: 

Total enrollment, demographics: http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/2167104685314217/site/default.asp 

Enrollment by grade: http://www.bcps.k12.md.us/216710112162656613/lib/216710112162656613/2010_11_PDFs/2009_10_State_of_Our_Hig

DuBois HS: http://www.mdreportcard.org/ 

Berkshire JSHS/BUFSD: Quarter Four MIS Reports (2010), NY Start (2008, 2009) https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/School.do?county=COLUMBIA&district=100308020000&school=100308020001&year=2009 

C-5

Appendix D: 

Table of Technical Assistance Providers 

D-1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: 

Technical Assistance Providers Bartram HS Berkshire JSHS DuBois HS FitzSimons HS

Germantown HS 

Lincoln HS

Overbrook HS 

University City HS

West Philadelphia

HS 

Access 411 

Mentoring and school safety 

American Institutes for Research 

CHAMPS (classroom management and 

discipline) 

       

Peers Making Peace (peer mediation program)       

Career and internship programs 

Ongoing site specific TA         

Branch and Associates 

Mentoring         

Center for Secondary School Redesign 

Ninth grade academy 

Leadership development 

John Hopkins Center for the Prevention of 

Youth Violence 

School climate 

John Hopkins Talent Development High 

Schools (Center for Social Organization of 

Schools) 

Ninth grade academies, teacher teams, and 

career academies 

 

Maryland Mentoring Partnership 

Mentoring 

New York Mentor 

Mentoring 

Philadelphia Academies, Inc. 

Internships        

D-3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 Bartram HS Berkshire JSHS DuBois HS FitzSimons HS Germantown HS Lincoln HS Overbrook HS University City HS West Philadelphia

HS 

Philadelphia Youth Network 

Student Success Centers       

School District of Philadelphia 

Overall grant administration and management 

(see textbox) 

      

United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Mentoring         

D-4