Building Engaged Schools: Employees and Students

Harvard Civil Rights Project 1. Compares pre-NCLB ( ) to post-NCLB ( ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2. Reading flat; math increases slightly as before 3. Current rate: 24-34% proficient in reading; 29-64% proficient in math by Economic and racial gaps remain 5. Early adopters – Florida, North Carolina, Texas – no better 6. State tests appear to have higher proficiency gains and decrease the gaps Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved at Copyright © 2007 The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ. All rights reserved.

Center for Education Policy Center for Education Policy. (2007). Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind? Retrieved at 1. Middle school reading in 24 states with proficient and effect size data: 11 states – moderate-to-large gains, 1 decline 2. Elementary, Middle School, High School in 22 states with proficient and effect size data: 5 states made moderate-to-large gains in reading and math 3. Reading in 22 states, 7 show moderate-to-large gains at three levels 4. Math in 22 states, 9 show moderate-to-large gains at three levels 5. Racial and income gaps: 14 of 38 states showed a narrowing of gaps in reading at three levels; 12 showed narrowing in math at three levels

A New Strategy Recognize and value the importance of people in learning.  Discover and develop the talents of every student and teacher.  Engage teachers and students in teaching and learning.

Today... The costs associated with poor per-person-productivity, poor employee retention, poor safety records, and lost work days are hidden but significant.

engagement? What is

More productive workgroups High ratingLow rating Poor Question “I feel I am paid the right amount.” Less productive workgroups High ratingLow rating Great Question “I have a best friend at work.” The Sorting Effect

Q 12 = Questions that matter Q1. I know what is expected of me at work. Q2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. Q3. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. Q4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. Q5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. Q6. There is someone at work who encourages my development. Q7. At work, my opinions seem to count. Q8. The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important. Q9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work. Q10. I have a best friend at work. Q11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. Q12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

million 10 interviews 41 languages 114 countries

Three Levels of Engagement Engaged Actively Disengaged Actively Disengaged Not Engaged Not Engaged 30% 55% 15% Engaged Not Engaged Actively Disengaged *Source: Gallup Poll data of U.S. working population 18 years and older, accumulated Apr.-Oct. 2006

The Second Element: Materials and Equipment In the past 30 days, have you had three or more days where the stress of work caused you to behave poorly with family or friends? “I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.” Percent who say the stress of work affected behavior Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 70% 53% 41% 29% 24%

Meta-Analysis of the 12 Elements Difference between top and bottom quartiles Turnover Absenteeism Shrinkage Safety Incidents CustomerProductivityProfitability Difference between engaged and actively disengaged employees in unexcused absences High- Turnover Orgs. Low- Turnover Orgs.

How Do We Affect Engagement Levels? ACTION: Diet Exercise ACCOUNTABILITY: Coach other people Measure for IMPROVEMENT MEASUREMENT: Baseline metrics: weight, inches, body fat, cholesterol

in Schools? Engagement What about

School District Case Study #1 8.05% Q 12 Grand Mean and % of Students Passing All Tests by Building

School District Case Study #2 9.74% Q 12 Grand Mean and % of Students Passing All Tests by Building

Practical Affect Elementary500 students = 44 more students High School 1500 students = 131 more students Average percent difference in students passing all tests of schools in top 15% vs. bottom 15% = 8.7

The Sample 18 school districts: –Arizona 1 –Colorado 2 –Florida 1 –Iowa 1 –Massachusetts 1 –Nebraska 2 –Ohio 3 –Texas 4 –Wisconsin schools participated

Data Gathered Gallup’s Q 12® survey of 4,116 teachers Student Engagement survey of 48,182 students grades 5-12 School serves as the unit of measurement Gathered self-reported grade level, gender, and race information for each student 83 of 112 schools provided achievement data that allowed dichotomous grouping

Student Achievement Comparisons School’s composite (mean of the grades and subjects represented for each school) Compared to state average and in Texas to the median of the comparison group Dichotomous grouping of schools as to above or below the state average or comparison group (83 of 112) Controlled for economically disadvantaged, school size, and level

Student Engagement Ten Q01. I know I will graduate from high school. Q02. This school makes me feel good about myself. Q03. I have a best friend at this school. Q04. I feel safe in this school. Q05. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my school work right. Q06. My teachers make me feel my school work is important. Q07. I am always treated with respect in this school. Q08. At this school, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. Q09. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good school work. Q10. I have opportunities at this school to choose how I learn.

Copyright © 2007 The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ. All rights reserved. Student Engagement GrandMean by School Level n= 48,142

Student Engagement and Achievement Top Quartile66.1% nd Quartile 52.7% rd Quartile 47.4% th Quartile 32.6%3.49 Student Engagement Probability of being above Grand Quartile the comparison group Mean Controlling for % economically disadvantaged, size of school, and school level.

Engagement Scores by Income Elementary MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage Middle MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage High MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage

Engagement Scores by Income Elementary MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage Middle MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage High MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage

Engagement Scores by Income Elementary MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage Middle MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage High MinMaxRangeMean Disadvantage Advantage

GREAT TEACHERS GREAT PRINCIPALS STRENGTHS DEVELOPMENT ENGAGED EMPLOYEES ENGAGED STUDENTS SUSTAINED GROWTH MEASURABLE OUTCOMES VALUE TO COMMUNITY Turnover Lost workdays Workers’ compensation Customer loyalty Student Achievement

Copyright Standards This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup, Inc. It is for the guidance of your company only and is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others outside of your organization. Gallup®, Q12®, The Gallup Path®, The Gallup Poll®, CE11®, SF34®, Business Impact Analysis™, and SRI® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This document is of great value to both your organization and Gallup. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protection protect the ideas, concepts, and recommendations related within this document. No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.