CREATING THE BEST CHOICE IN URBAN EDUCATION BOARD PRESENTATION SEPTEMBER 6, 2007.

CREATING THE CREATING THE BEST CHOICE IN BEST CHOICE IN

URBAN EDUCATION URBAN EDUCATION BOARD PRESENTATIONBOARD PRESENTATION

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007SEPTEMBER 6, 2007

Proficient reading skills in grades 1-2

Reading on grade level by Grade 3

Advanced math in 5th grade

Algebra I in grade 8

Increased AP class offerings in ALL schools

ACT score at 21 or better

Increased attendance

Proficiency targets met on MAP

FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESS FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESS IN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEMSIN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEMS

Focus on Student AchievementFocus on Student Achievement Development of Accountability SystemsDevelopment of Accountability Systems Focus on the Lowest Performing SchoolsFocus on the Lowest Performing Schools Adoption of District-wide Curricula Adoption of District-wide Curricula

and Instructional Approachesand Instructional Approaches Commitment to Central Office Support through Commitment to Central Office Support through

Professional DevelopmentProfessional Development Reform Driven from the Classroom by Defining the Reform Driven from the Classroom by Defining the

Role of Central OfficeRole of Central Office Commitment to Data-driven Decision MakingCommitment to Data-driven Decision Making Reform Level to Level in Incremental StagesReform Level to Level in Incremental Stages Commitment to Intensive Instruction in Commitment to Intensive Instruction in

Literacy and MathLiteracy and Math

Excerpt from mdrc.org/publications/47/execsum.html

PRECONDITIONS FOR PRECONDITIONS FOR REFORM IN URBAN SCHOOL REFORM IN URBAN SCHOOL

SYSTEMSSYSTEMS School Board Role that Supports Improved School Board Role that Supports Improved

Student Achievement Versus Day-to-Day Student Achievement Versus Day-to-Day Operational IssuesOperational Issues

Shared Vision Between Chief Executive of the Shared Vision Between Chief Executive of the District and the School Board Regarding Goals District and the School Board Regarding Goals and Strategies for Reformand Strategies for Reform

Capacity to Diagnose Instructional Problems that Capacity to Diagnose Instructional Problems that the District can Solvethe District can Solve

Focus on Revamping District Operations to Serve Focus on Revamping District Operations to Serve and Support Schoolsand Support Schools

Matching New Resources to Support Matching New Resources to Support the Vision for Reformthe Vision for Reform

Excerpt from mdrc.org/publications/47/execsum.html

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?

2006-2007

•Expansion of curriculum department to provide site support for standards-based reform

Systemized process for aligning curriculum

•Design & implement the curriculum-based lesson design tool for all content areas

Alignment of Career &Technical Education courses to the core content/curriculum

Alignment of elective courses; removal of obsolete offerings

FUTURE FORECAST

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?

2004-2005

•No standards-based curriculum; site based selection

Disjointed curriculum- math/science/ art/music

2004-2005

2005-2006

•Standards-based reform (OCR implementation P-5)

Aligned curriculum K-12

2004-2005

•5000 textbook titles- math/science adoption began in 2001; all other textbooks were adopted in 1992-95

Site-based supplemental programs on an “as needed” basis

2005-2006

•Alignment of textbooks- selected core classes

Supplement-al programs aligned to support the core

2006-2007

•Systemized timeline for textbook adoption

Textbook titles narrowed to 1500- core & elective

Vertical alignment of pd/ap/AVID to support the core curriculum

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT?

•Realignment of course offerings (catalog)- last revision was 2003-2004

Extension of summer & SES programs to meet enrichment, as well as remedial needs as implemented during the regular school year

FUTURE FORECAST

2004-2005

•District of schools; not a school district

2005-2006

•Movement away from a district of schools

2006-2007

•Programmatic examination to become a school district

How has the district How has the district addressed STUDENT addressed STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT?ACHIEVEMENT?

•Moving toward being a school district; not a district of schools

Magnet school revitalizationEarly preparation for expanding preschoolExpansion of ESOL Newcomers’ Center8th grade Algebra offerings/5th grade advanced math offeringPLC Instructional modelIntervention programs in reading/math for secondary studentsComprehensive Literacy Plan for allDual-credit offerings to eligible studentsExpansion of Foreign Language offerings, K-12All student access to a rigorous curriculum

FUTURE FORECAST

• Benchmark Assessments, data delivery solved and enhancement including AYP groupings

•SLPSTAT Scorecard at District and Building Level

•MSIP Compliance Department evaluations presented monthly

•“Critical Friend” Reviews

•SIP Review Protocol

•Data Repository – drill down to child

FUTURE FORECAST

How has the district addressed THE How has the district addressed THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS?ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS?

2005-2006

• Benchmark Assessments initiated, but problems with alignment

• Attempt at MSIP compliance monitoring

2006-2007

• Benchmark Assessments, alignment corrected, but problems with data delivery

• Attempt at Scorecard for schools

2004-2005

• Terra Nova and MAP Testing

• Program Evaluations

• Data distributed but not widely used

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed LOWEST PERFORMING LOWEST PERFORMING

SCHOOLS?SCHOOLS?

2004-2005

•SES afterschool programs• School Improvement Funds• School-by-school instructional reform models• MAP Attack established

2005-2006

•School Performance Teams established

2006-2007

•School Performance Teams Expanded

FUTURE FORECAST

• Increased Human Resources

o School Site Facilitieso Instructional coaches

• Focused Professional Development• Increased Accountability• MAP Instructional Strategy Training

How has the district addressed DISTRICT-How has the district addressed DISTRICT-WIDE CURRICULA AND INSTRUCTIONAL WIDE CURRICULA AND INSTRUCTIONAL

APPROACHES?APPROACHES?

2004-2005

•Textbooks were driving the instruction

•Site based instructional strategy selection

2005-2006

•Standards-based reform process began

•Open Court Reading at elementary

•Research-based instructional strategies imbedded

2006-2007

•Tighter alignment between the written, taught, and tested curriculum

•Benchmark data revealed need for specific instructional processes

FUTURE FORECAST

•Professional Learning Communities will drive the curricula and instructional approach decisions

2004-2005

•Focused on new programs and the pd specific to programming

•Content Supervisors provided PD

2005-2006

•Focused on new curriculum

•Program specific PD

•Instructional Coaches at elementary

•Program vs. People development

FUTURE FORECAST

Five District Focal Points

1. Curriculum-based lesson design

2. MAP strategies

3. Data driven decision-making

4. Learning communities

5. Positive learning environment

• District-wide Literacy focus

• Instructional Coaching model (CORE)

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

2006-2007

•Continued on-going content training

•CIPD collaboration

•Coaches discontinued

•National Staff Development Council standards used

2004-2005

•Paper/pencil evaluation – not reviewed regularly 2005-

2006

•Paper evaluations reviewed by data specialists

2006-2007

•Initiated on-line PD evaluation

PD budget initiated building budgets in mid-year for SIP support

FUTURE FORECAST

•Systematize use of PD evaluation on-line

PD budget includes building budgets for SIP support with accountability measures

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

2004-2005

•Professional Development Committee (PDC) existed under MAP Attack

2005-2006

•PDC not representative district-wide

No district adopted PD Plan

2006-2007

•District-wide PDC established

District PD Plan developed and approved

FUTURE FORECAST

High Quality Teaching and Learning plan developed

Development of long range professional development plan in progress

Coaches receive intensive literacy training

Expand literacy training to elementary and secondary teachers in incremental stages

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

2004-2005

•Site based models for discipline

New teacher induction was benefits related; not curriculum

2005-2006

•Site based models for disciplineNew teacher induction fragmented

2006-2007

•Fred Jones model for discipline, instruction and motivation piloted in 18 schools with on-going support

New teacher -mentor program revised

FUTURE FORECAST

•Fred Jones model initiated in Pilot II group of 24 schools (42 total schools)

•All new teachers trained in the Fred Jones model

•5 year plan for Leadership Academy for Character Education to train all principals/leaders

Development of cohesive model for new teacher induction and mentoring

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed DEFINING THE ROLE OF DEFINING THE ROLE OF

CENTRAL OFFICE?CENTRAL OFFICE?

2004-2005

•Organizational Assessment with

“Transition Team” 2005-

2006

•Expectation that departments work in isolation resulting in duplication or mismatched services

2006-2007

•Initiated collegial work environment and collaboration to focus on student achievement focus for ALL SLPS employees

•CIPD collaboration for support to schools

•Focused Organizational Assessment conducted

FUTURE FORECAST

•District-wide strategic planning includes multiple cross-functional teams--short and long range goals addressed

•Departments collaborate on scheduling and supporting principals and schools in all areas

•New Strategic Plan being developed through cross-functional team process

•Education Officers role restructured to instructional focus

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed DEFINING THE ROLE OF DEFINING THE ROLE OF

CENTRAL OFFICE?CENTRAL OFFICE?

2005-2006

•Limited PD for support staff•Central Office staff support School Performance Teams (SPTs) and School Opening

2004-2005

•Central Office performed its role to the schools in isolation of its needs

2006-2007

•Initiated PD to support staff in technology and diversity

•Initiated Office Professionals Committee

•Central Office staff support SPTs

FUTURE FORECAST

•Implementing on-going PD for support staff

•Implementing new, on-going training in Customer Service to staff

•Initiating networking and mentoring for support staff

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed DATA DRIVEN DECISION-DATA DRIVEN DECISION-

MAKING?MAKING?

2004-2005

•Data requests made to accountability office from schools

•Limited access to data

•Data delivery not timely

•No formal training on the use of data

• No PLC’s

2005-2006

•Merged data to SIS System

•Hired data specialist for each Cluster

•Some leaders trained in a system of using data

•Few PLC’s in the high school

2006-2007

•Most schools extracted data for use

•All leaders trained in using data

•Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) in some schools

FUTURE FORECAST

•Data Repository

•All School Improvement teams trained to use data so it’s drilled to individual students

•All schools as PLC’s

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed DATA DRIVEN DECISION-DATA DRIVEN DECISION-

MAKING?MAKING?

2004-2005

•Schools created multiple plans with no accountability

•School plans were developed in isolation

2005-2006

•District attempted the Data Dashboard with multiple plans

•Some schools formed teams

2006-2007

•District required only one comprehensive plan

•All schools formed teams with cluster accountability structures

FUTURE FORECAST

•School-wide plans will be web-based and transparent for all owners

•Systemized process with rubrics to assess and monitor the plans for all schools

2004-2005

•Began Open Court in all elementary schools

2005-2006

•Direct Instruction for middle grades•Standards-based aligned curriculum in grades 6-12 in all content areas

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed INCREMENTAL GROWTH?INCREMENTAL GROWTH?

FUTURE FORECAST

•Expanded AP offerings- 78 sections; all schools

•Stringent program evaluations of all content-specific and supplemental programs to determine district direction

•Standards-based AP vertical alignment to the core content

2006-2007

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed LITERACY AND MATH?LITERACY AND MATH?

2004-2005

•Site-based; various basal readers

•Various school reform models for Needs Improvement Schools

2005-2006

•Double-dose in reading and math for secondary students

•3-tiered framework for reading intervention

•Awarded the Reading 1st grant

FUTURE FORECAST

•Secondary reading intervention- Language!- meeting the needs of fluency and comprehension

•Algebra Intervention Program (8-9)

•5th grade math advancement

2006-2007

•Double-dose in reading and math in selective middle and high schools based on allocations

•Continued implementation of 3-tiered framework

•Awarded Early Reading First grant- P3-preschool

•End-of-Course Exams, DESE mandate (English, Biology, and Algebra)

•Identify reading/math diagnostic assessments for P-12

•Identify comprehensive writing program P-11

•Curriculum-based lesson design tool for all content-areas

•Full implementation of READ 180 for grades 6-8

FUTURE FORECAST

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed LITERACY AND MATH?LITERACY AND MATH?

2004-2005

•Implemented OCR 11/2004

•Step Up to Writing- all high schools; selected middle and elementary schools

2005-2006

•ImplementedDirect Instruction for grades 6-8 reading intervention

•READ 180 (grades 4-12) for 1 year and halted

2006-2007

•KG intervention- Waterford, Tier 1 intervention

•DESE mandated developmental reading minutes- 90 minutes uninterrupted

District-wide Strategies and District-wide Strategies and AccountabilityAccountability

Strategic focus on performance standardsStrategic focus on performance standards Administrator assigned and responsible for every Administrator assigned and responsible for every

performance standardperformance standard MSIP Office ensures compliance with accreditation MSIP Office ensures compliance with accreditation

standardsstandards Performance targets set for every schoolPerformance targets set for every school MSIP action plan created and implemented at building levelMSIP action plan created and implemented at building level Monthly Principals’ meeting with Superintendent on Monthly Principals’ meeting with Superintendent on

accreditation strategiesaccreditation strategies SLPStat scorecard evaluates progress at Building Level SLPStat scorecard evaluates progress at Building Level

and Central Officeand Central Office Recognition of school performance through board Recognition of school performance through board

meetings, press releases, Parent Assembly, SLPS meetings, press releases, Parent Assembly, SLPS newsletter, etc.newsletter, etc.

SLPSTAT PROCESSSLPSTAT PROCESS

Accountability measures for each school building and the District –Accountability measures for each school building and the District –data indicators and targetsdata indicators and targets– MAP Communication Arts and Math (all levels)MAP Communication Arts and Math (all levels)

– Reading on Grade Level - Terra Nova (all levels)Reading on Grade Level - Terra Nova (all levels)

– Fifth Grade Enrollment in Advanced MathFifth Grade Enrollment in Advanced Math

– ACT scores (high schools)ACT scores (high schools)

– Student Attendance (all levels)Student Attendance (all levels)

– Advanced Placement Courses (high school)Advanced Placement Courses (high school)

– College Enrollment (high school)College Enrollment (high school)

– Drop out rates (high school)Drop out rates (high school)

– Graduation Rates (high school)Graduation Rates (high school)

– Highly Qualified Teachers (all levels)Highly Qualified Teachers (all levels)

Accountability measures and methods of assessment for each Accountability measures and methods of assessment for each office/department.office/department.

MISSOURI SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MISSOURI SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MSIP)PROGRAM (MSIP)

MSIP ensures that all schools meet certain basic standards. MSIP ensures that all schools meet certain basic standards. Districts are given accreditation status of Accredited”, “Provisional Districts are given accreditation status of Accredited”, “Provisional Accreditation”, and “Unaccredited”. Three types of standards are Accreditation”, and “Unaccredited”. Three types of standards are included in MSIP reviewsincluded in MSIP reviews– Resource Standards – Basic requirements districts must meetResource Standards – Basic requirements districts must meet– Process Standards – Instructional and administrative process used in schoolsProcess Standards – Instructional and administrative process used in schools– Performance Standards – Measure of student performancePerformance Standards – Measure of student performance

Third cycle reviews through 2004-05 included all three types of Third cycle reviews through 2004-05 included all three types of standards. Beginning in 2005-06, the Fourth cycle reviews used standards. Beginning in 2005-06, the Fourth cycle reviews used only performance standards to determine accreditation status only performance standards to determine accreditation status

In 2004-05, SLPS was determined to be “Provisionally Accredited”In 2004-05, SLPS was determined to be “Provisionally Accredited” Based on 2005-06, SLPS was determined to be “Unaccredited” for Based on 2005-06, SLPS was determined to be “Unaccredited” for

the 2007-2008 schoolthe 2007-2008 school

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB)(NCLB)

An accountability measure for all public schools with the goal that all children will be An accountability measure for all public schools with the goal that all children will be proficient in reading and math by 2014proficient in reading and math by 2014

Specific annual targets were set to measure “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) in Specific annual targets were set to measure “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) in communication arts and mathematics. These targets apply to the total and to all communication arts and mathematics. These targets apply to the total and to all subgroups of students – race, free/reduced lunch, IEP, LEPsubgroups of students – race, free/reduced lunch, IEP, LEP

AYP is measured by the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Advanced on AYP is measured by the percentage of students scoring Proficient or Advanced on the state MAP test in communication arts and mathematics. Science targets will be the state MAP test in communication arts and mathematics. Science targets will be set for the first time in Spring 2008 and will be considered in AYP measurements.set for the first time in Spring 2008 and will be considered in AYP measurements.

Through the Spring 2004 administration of the MAP, grades 3, 7, and 11 in Through the Spring 2004 administration of the MAP, grades 3, 7, and 11 in communication arts and grades 4, 8, and 10 in mathematics were included in AYP communication arts and grades 4, 8, and 10 in mathematics were included in AYP

In 2006, grades were expanded to 3-8 and 11 in communication arts and 3-8 and In 2006, grades were expanded to 3-8 and 11 in communication arts and 3-8 and 10 in mathematics. Science grade levels will be 5, 8, and 11 in Spring 200810 in mathematics. Science grade levels will be 5, 8, and 11 in Spring 2008

In 2006, attendance and graduation rate targets were included as “additional In 2006, attendance and graduation rate targets were included as “additional indicators” that must also be met to make AYPindicators” that must also be met to make AYP

MAP – Communication ArtsMAP – Communication ArtsPercent Proficient & AdvancedPercent Proficient & Advanced

MAP – MathematicsMAP – MathematicsPercent Proficient & AdvancedPercent Proficient & Advanced

28

Missouri Lets Schools SlideU.S. Report Says…..

The Article

•“The state had not asked to see district letters that should have been sent to parents, explaining their children could be eligible for tutoring or transfers from failing schools.”

SLPS

•Each year, the Title I Office identifies schools in “Needs Improvement” and sends letters to each parent explaining their rights•Hosted the SES Community Fair

How has the district addressed How has the district addressed POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE?POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE?

NATIONAL PERSPECTIVENATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

A report published in March, 2005 by the Center on A report published in March, 2005 by the Center on Education Policy, noted that schools in very large, urban Education Policy, noted that schools in very large, urban LEA’s and middle schools in general are most likely to be LEA’s and middle schools in general are most likely to be identified for improvement under NCLBidentified for improvement under NCLB

The overall percentage of public schools failing to make The overall percentage of public schools failing to make AYP in 2003-04 was approximately 21-22% of all public AYP in 2003-04 was approximately 21-22% of all public schools. The percentage of schools for individual states schools. The percentage of schools for individual states ranged from 4% to 77%ranged from 4% to 77%

Based on Spring, 2006 MAP scores, DESE has notified Based on Spring, 2006 MAP scores, DESE has notified school officials that in the state of Missouri 102 additional school officials that in the state of Missouri 102 additional buildings and 167 districts will be in “needs improvement” in buildings and 167 districts will be in “needs improvement” in 2007-082007-08

As the NCLB targets increase each year, more and more As the NCLB targets increase each year, more and more schools and districts will fail to meet AYP standardsschools and districts will fail to meet AYP standards

The Need to Stop DoingThe Need to Stop Doing

Most of us have an ever-expanding “to do” list, Most of us have an ever-expanding “to do” list, trying to build momentum by doing, doing, trying to build momentum by doing, doing, doing…and doing more. And it rarely works. doing…and doing more. And it rarely works. Those who built “good to great” organizations, Those who built “good to great” organizations, however, made as much use of “stop doing” however, made as much use of “stop doing” lists as “to do” lists. They had the discipline to lists as “to do” lists. They had the discipline to stop doing all the extraneous junk.stop doing all the extraneous junk.

---Jim Collins---Jim Collins

CREATING THE BEST CHOICE IN URBAN

EDUCATION

Site-based Reform Models

SLPStat

Scorecard

High Quality Teaching and

Teaching

Owner Engagement

AccountabilityLeadership

Safe and Orderly Environment

Focused Professional Development

BEST CHOICE IN URBAN EDUCATION

Creating the Best Choice in Creating the Best Choice in Urban EducationUrban Education

"The one thing that great "The one thing that great leaders do is rally people to leaders do is rally people to believe in a better future." believe in a better future."

-Marcus Buckingham-Marcus Buckingham

CREATING THE CREATING THE BEST CHOICE IN BEST CHOICE IN

URBAN EDUCATION URBAN EDUCATION