The Riverbank High School Story
The Riverbank High School story is the story of a small high school in a small, rural school district in California. It is the only high school in the district with one feeder middle school. The high school, which has approximately 900 students with 42 professional teaching staff members, faced many of the challenges that other schools encounter - declining state test scores, failure to meet AYP standards, limited resources, high level of English language learners, and pressure to increase achievement.
Ken's Bio
Ken Geisick, Ed.D., is the superintendent of Riverbank Unified School District, a rural/semi-suburban district in central California. Formerly, he was the principal of Riverbank High School and he has lead the CLC initiative since 2004. In 2007, Riverbank High School received the SIM Impact Award from Kansas University-Center on Research and Learning (KU-CRL) for school reform. Previously, Ken led a similar literacy reform project at a large, urban middle school. In 2003, his middle school was recognized with the SIM Innovation Award for improved achievement with diverse learners. Ken is a SIM Certified Professional Developer in Content Enhancement Routines and he has received the SIM Administrative Endorsement from KU-CRL. He also serves as an Administrative Liaison with the Strategic Learning Center and Action Designs, Inc and presents to teams of site and district administrators about building capacity for increased instructional leadership system-wide. Ken is an adjunct faculty member at Chapman University and he serves on the Board of Directors for the California Association of School Health Centers.
Demographics
The town where Riverbank high school is located is a fast growing, rural agricultural area of the California Central Valley. The ethnic breakdown of West High School is the reverse of the community, with 65% being Hispanic, and 35% being Caucasian.
The enrollment at school ranges between 800-900 students. About 40% students are classified as English Language Learners while 5-10% receive services for Gifted and Talented students, and 7-10% receive special education services. Approximately 50% of these students qualify for free and reduced price lunch.
CLC Story
Riverbank High began their CLC initiative after a state accreditation team highlighted declining state test scores and warned the school that the Program Improvement process was imminent. Like all schools in California, Riverbank received a numeric state achievement score based on a scale of 200-1000. Schools that are performing at 800 are considered adequately performing schools. Before Riverbank High began the CLC effort, their state test scores as represented by their Academic Performance Index (API) score was 556.
The accreditation team provided a list of rigorous school wide recommendations, including the establishment of a committee to examine research-based instructional programs to address the needs of underperforming groups. After conducting their research, this committee presented several options to the faculty. The faculty selected the Strategic Instruction Model Content Literacy Continuum as their focus for the following five years.
During the first three years, Riverbank established four of the five CLC levels, levels 1-4 and began efforts to establish level 5. Although staff members had voted to begin a CLC effort, they did not fully realize the implications, including the changes needed in roles and responsibilities, scheduling, teaching methods, and other infrastructure changes. New reading classes were put in place to address the needs of students with basic reading deficit and special education classes were converted to strategy instruction classes, open to any students who needed explicit strategy instruction. Although some teachers were not happy with their new roles, the administrators worked with the staff to build their understanding of the need for the changes and their commitment to the new plan.
During the first year, the administrators stayed focused on the CLC effort and recruited members for a Literacy Leadership Team to help them lead the initiative. The team listened to the staff members' concerns, engaged in problem-solving meetings, and responded with solutions. Although many teachers were skeptical or not fully committed during the first two years, the administrators and the leadership team emphasized the need for a school-wide effort and used effective leadership strategies to move the effort forward. By the end of the third year, the reading classes and strategy classes were fully established and students' literacy levels were improving, and a critical mass of teachers were using the Content Enhancement Routines in their classes. Formative data showed that students were making gains in literacy and in content mastery. State achievement data also showed that achievement on state tests was increasing (see graph below.)
Throughout the effort, the district was focused on local building capacity to sustain CLC, regardless of changes in administration, staff, and external consultants. By the end of the third year, several teachers and the administrators began the process to become certified SIM professional developers. The Literacy Leadership Team was functioning as a highly effective leadership group, making decisions based on the data they collected and analyzed. Teachers at the high school were assuming leadership roles within their departments and across departments as well as working with middle school teachers.
After five years, the principal, assistant principal and some staff left Riverbank High to assume leadership positions at the district level or in other nearby schools. The principal, who became the Superintendent of the Riverbank district, has promoted CLC throughout the district. The assistant principal and others have begun CLC efforts in other schools. Despite the personnel changes, Riverbank High continues to sustain CLC and to increase literacy skills and achievement for all students.
We knew that improvement is not a continuous straight line but rather a series of gains followed by plateaus or dips. We encouraged the high implementers to stay the course and to encourage others to do the same.
While the year of faculty investigation may not have translated into more effective instruction for students immediately, I believe that it allowed us to move further along in implementing the Content Literacy Continuum effort than if we simply adopted it without processing through the 'shopping for instruction' phase. This process was intentional and it was an important step for building 'critical mass' with the faculty.
Back to Projects