Date post: | 08-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | trinhthien |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
AGENDA Durham Public Schools Board of Education
Academic and Student Services Work Session
October 6, 2016
Fuller Administration Building, 511 Cleveland Street, Durham, NC
1. Call to Order
2. Moment of Silence
3. Agenda Review and Approval
4. Public Comment
5. Academic and Student Services Work Session Meeting Minutes
I. September 1, 2016
6. Reports
I. Math II and Math III NCFE Update
II. Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services
III. Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019
IV. Athletic Eligibility
V. Pre-K Sliding Scale
VI. Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM)
VII. Summary of Follow Up Items
VIII. Adjournment
Mission Statement In collaboration with our community and parents, the mission of Durham Public Schools is to provide all students with an outstanding education that motivates them to
reach their full potential and enables them to discover their interests and talents, pursue their goals and dreams, and succeed in college, in the workforce and
as engaged citizen
Date: October 6, 2016
Durham Public Schools
Academic and Student Services Work Session PRECIS
Agenda Item: Academic and Student Services Work Session
Staff Liaison Present: Stacey Wilson-Norman, Ed.D. Phone #: 560-3874
Main Points: Attached for committee consideration and approval is a draft copy of the following minutes:
• September 1, 2016
Fiscal Implications:
• None
Strategic Plan Alignment:
• N/A
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney __________
2
Minutes of the
Academic and Student Services Work Session
Durham Public Schools
September 1, 2016
The Durham Public Schools Board of Education Academic and Student Services Work Session
Committee met on Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:31 P.M. in the Board Room, Fuller
Administration Building - 511 Cleveland Street, Durham, NC.
Committee Members Present
Michael Lee, Chair; Minnie Forte-Brown; Steve Unruhe; Xavier Cason; and, Matt Sears
Administrators Present
Dr. Bert L’Homme, Superintendent; Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for
Academic Services; Jacqueline Ellis, Assistant Superintendent; Alisa McLean, Assistant
Superintendent; John McCain, Assistant Superintendent; William Sudderth-III, Chief
Information Officer; Hugh Osteen, Deputy Superintendent of Operations; and Julie Spencer,
Assistant Superintendent for Research and Accountability
Attorney Present
None
Call to Order/Moment of Silence
Michael Lee, Chair, called the meeting to order and presided over a moment of silence.
Agenda Review and Approval
Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the agenda with changes and the motion passed unanimously.
Closed session followed Public Comment
Items I (2015-2016 Preliminary Data Release and II (Policy Revisions: Student Transfers,
School Assignment, and Program Magnet Schools were moved to items VI and VII)
Closed session to follow the adjournment
General Public Comment
None
Approval of Minutes
The August 4, 2016 minutes of the Academic and Student Support Services Work Session
Committee were unanimously approved.
3
Page 2 | Academic and Support Services Work Session –September 1, 2016
Reports
Memorandum of Agreement between Durham Public Schools and North Carolina Central
University
Public Comment: None
Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman provided an update on the specifics of early college programming
and clarity regarding operational responsibilities according to the legislature and the alignment of
the ongoing commitment between the two entities. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has
been updated after a ten year period to parallel with facility usage, maintenance, security, and
traffic items of concern. The major components of the MOA has been executed by the Provost
and reviewed by Durham Public Schools and North Carolina Central University attorneys. The
current enrollment is 369 students.
The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The item was presented for action to be
executed immediately. The MOA was unanimously approved.
Contract for Services - Edmentum
Public Comment: None
DeShawna Gooch, Director of Accelerated Learning, and Richard Sheldahl, Director of Career
Technical Education (CTE) was seeking approval for a three-year contract with Edmentum. The
company will provide services through:
Plato Courseware - replaced Apex Learning and is structured to provide alternative
methods of recovering failed courses for students
Educational Options Academy - provides digital learning and acceleration options for
middle and high school students in exclusive situations
CTE Courseware - offers over 100 courses and serves as an additional instructional tool
for CTE teachers and student
With the implementation of a three year contract, the district will save $135,060.00.
The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The contract was unanimously approved.
Contract for Services – Curriculum and Associates (iReady)
Public Comment: None
Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership, was seeking approval on
the Curriculum and Associates contract which supports:
iReady – Universal screener that supports the MTSS process for elementary and middle
schools in math grades 3-8 and reading grades 4-8. The iReady data monitors/measures
student growth during the beginning, middle and year-end
Teacher Toolbox – provides online instructional resources for students and teachers
Teacher-Direct Instruction – provides downloadable lessons to students based on the
diagnostic results
The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The contract was unanimously approved.
4
Page 3 | Academic and Support Services Work Session –September 1, 2016
Contract for Services – Discovery Education
Public Comment: None
Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership, was seeking approval on
the Discovery Education contract which provides:
Digital resources for standards-aligned curricular activities, virtual field trips, and other
instructional materials to all schools from kindergarten to grade 12
Over 25,000 logins
Lessons and assignment resources created by DPS teachers
The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The contract was unanimously approved.
Contract for Services – Learning A-Z
Public Comment: None
Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership was seeking approval on
the Learning A-Z contract which provides:
Lesson plans and leveled texts that integrate science and social studies accessible to
teachers during reading for grades K-5
Tutoring/mentoring methods for teachers with specialized lessons for student intervention
Digital educational resources that support instruction and student practices in reading,
science, and writing.
The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The contract was unanimously approved.
2015-2016 Preliminary Data Release
Public Comment: None
Dr. Julie Spencer, Assistant Superintendent for Research and Accountability, provided an
overview of the federal and state accountability models and preliminary district data for the
2015-2016 school year. The report consisted of the summary and highlights of overall
achievements that were met or exceeded expected growth. She also provided a full report on the
school performance grades for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools.
Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for Academic Services, provided a full
report on the district goals, and implementation plans for 3rd
grade - students who enter pre-k or
kindergarten will be reading at or above grade level; 8th
grade - students will be prepared for high
school at the end of 8th
grade; and 12th
grade – an annual 2% graduation rate increase. The
Bottom-line expectations were adopted to support the District Improvement Plan’s academic
expectations that ensure systemic improvements to guarantee growth for all students. The
District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM) aligns with the District goals, supports the
implementation, and will monitor and measure student growth that will assist in evaluating
student efforts. A draft timeline and key data sets have been developed in order to assist with
measuring student growth.
5
Page 4 | Academic and Support Services Work Session –September 1, 2016
Policy Revisions: Student Transfers, School Assignment, and Program Magnet Schools
Public Comment: None
The board of education approved the following revisions of Policy 4132 - Student Transfers and
Policy 4130 - School Assignment:
Students who are domiciled in the attendance zones of Holt and Easley calendar magnet
schools may opt out to their designated traditional schools without an “approved”
transfer. (4132.5)
Students who would receive a sibling priority or program link to a calendar magnet
school, but fail to submit a lottery application by the published deadline due to an
extenuating circumstance, may be given a priority to receive a transfer. (4132.6)
Students assigned to a school through a student transfer or lottery application may
voluntarily decline their assignment until the first day of school. (4132.8)
Revisions to Policy 4130-School Assignment reflect the changes approved for Policy
4132-Student Transfers.
The board discussed Policy 4131 - Program Magnet Schools to consider an assignment priority
for siblings of students assigned to a secondary program magnet school through the
application/lottery process (4131.2 and 4131.2.B). No action was taken.
The board had a full discussion and requested additional information from the administration in
preparation for a future discussion. The items were placed on the agenda for full board meeting.
Summary of Follow-up Items
There being no further business, Michael Lee, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:30 P.M and the
board moved to closed session.
6
Date: October 6, 2016
Academic & Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Math II and Math III NCFE Update
Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Alisa Mclean Phone: (919) 560-2550
Melissa Watson (919) 560-2505
Amy Gross (919) 560-2000 x21314
NCDPI communicated that the North Carolina Final Exam (NCFE) scores for NC
Math II and Math III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not be available to
include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades.
It is a local decision to additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II
and NC Math III.
Durham Board of Education Policy 3200.5 requires the student’s final grades in all
courses be determined by calculating 80% of the grade as the course average and 20% of
the student’s’ final grade.
Administration is asking for approval to waive the 20% required final exam calculation
for NC Math II and NC Math III.
Fiscal Implications:
None
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________
7
Project Title: Math II and Math III NCFE Update
Project Team:
Dr. Alisa McLean, Assistant Superintendent of High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Melissa Watson, Director, High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Amy Gross, 9-12 Mathematics Curriculum Specialist
Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction has revised the standards for Math I, Math II, and Math
III. These revisions were approved by the State Board of Education. The courses have been renamed as NC
Math I, NC Math II, and NC Math III. When curriculum standards are revised, each associated assessment must
also be revised to reflect alignment to the new content standards. The End of Course for NC Math I has required
minor revisions to align with the new content standards and will be administered as scheduled during the regular
testing windows. The revisions do not have an impact on the return of student scores or the inclusion of NC Math
I data in accountability and growth reports for 2016–17.
The NC Math II and NC Math III assessments, however, will require more extensive revisions. Therefore, the
2016-17 NC Math II and NC Math III assessments will be used to develop new test items for the 2017–18 NC
Math II and NC Math III assessments.
NCDPI determined that scores for NC Math II and Math III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not
be available to include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades. It is a local decision to
additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II and NC Math III.
The High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership staff met with the high school principals regarding the
NCDPI expectations for how end-of-year testing for Math II and Math III will be executed this year. Principals
requested that we consider waiving the additional teacher-made final exam this year to avoid added stress to both
teachers and students.
After researching over 15 NC school districts, it was determined that this waiver for an additional final exam
would be consistent with other districts in the region. This will result in a change from Durham Public School’s
Board of Education Policy 3200.5 that requires the student’s final grades in all courses be determined by
calculating 80% of the grade as the course average and 20% of the student’s’ final grade.
Grading would be calculated as follows:
Semester course: 50% Term 1 and 50% Term 2
Year-long course: 25% Term 1, 25% Term 2, 25% Term 3, and 25% Term 4
The High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership requests that Durham Public School’s Board of Education
waive the 2016-17 teacher-made final exam for all NC Math II and NC Math III Durham Public School
students.
In addition, procedures will be taken to reflect the “no-final exam” calculation in the PowerSchool gradebook.
Academic and Support Services Executive Summary
8
Math II and Math III NCFE Update
Dr. Alisa McLean, Assistant Superintendent of High School Teaching, Learning & Leadership
Melissa Watson, Director, High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Amy Gross, Mathematics Curriculum Specialist
Academic and Student Services Work Session
October 6, 2016
9
NCDPI UPDATE:
• NCDPI determined that scores for NC Math II and III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not be available to include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades. It is a local decision to additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II and NC III.
10
Main Points
• The high school leadership team
determined that the administration of an additional assessment would not provide any academic benefit for students.
• Administration is asking for approval to waive the 20% required final exam calculation for NC Math II and NC
Math III • This change has no fiscal implications
11
Questions
12
Date: October 6, 2016
Durham Public Schools
Academic and Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services
Staff Liaison Present: Kristin Bell, Ed.D. Phone # (919) 560-3774
Main Points:
An overview of EC nursing services is provided to address the educational contexts
which necessitate nursing supervision or services and the structures and processes for
monitoring and supporting these services in the schools.
The administration is presenting this to the Board for information.
Fiscal Implications:
Individual nursing contracts with different agencies will be supported through state and
federal Exceptional Children’s Program funds.
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney __________
13
Project Title: Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services
Project Team: Dr. Kristin Bell, Executive Director of Exceptional Children’s Program
Project Description: Overview of EC Nursing Services
Due to the complexities of individual student 1:1 nursing needs as well as the Individualized
Education Program online student needs, the administration determined that Delta-T was unable
to meet the goals of the program as well as provide quality services. The administration after
consulting with Tharrington Smith has terminated the contract awarded to Delta-T. The
administration is presenting this action to the Board for information. Subsequently, the
administration has contracted with the following nursing agencies: Bayada Pediatrics, Maxim
Healthcare, and PSA Health to provide 1:1 nursing services. All contracts are under $90,000.00.
The DPS Lead Nurse consults with the student’s physician to obtain level of health/medical care
needs of students. Additionally, the DPS Lead Nurse collaborates and plans with nursing
supervisors/directors of each agency, evaluates and identifies student needs through the pre-
school assessment team, and receives transfer students (in-state or out of-state) who already have
an established need. The nursing agency develops plan care based on medical orders. Nursing
services review meetings are held at the beginning, middle, and end-of-year.
Timeline August 2016- June 2017
Impact on resources Existing EC funds will be used
Alignment to local, state or
federal policies Program is aligned to meet local, state, and federal policies
(Individualized Education Programs)
Intended outcomes Provide quality medical care to students
Board Action Information only
Communication and Next Steps Monitor and conduct beginning, middle, and end-of-year
review of services provided
Academic Services Executive Summary
14
Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC)
Nursing Services
Dr. Kristin Bell Executive Director, Exceptional Children’s Program
Academic and Student Services Work Session October 6, 2016
15
Contracts with Nursing
Agencies
• Contract with nursing agencies (Bayada Pediatrics, Maxim Healthcare, and PSA Healthcare)
• Collaborate and plan with nursing supervisors/ directors of each agency
• Support for eight DPS students • Evaluate and identify student needs through
pre-school assessment team • Receive transfer students (in-state or out-of-
state) who already have an established need 16
Fiscal Implications
• Continued allocation need for Lead Nurse and three EC nurses
• Extra duty needs for nurses and staff to be
“first-day ready”
• Individual nursing contracts include hourly
rates for services rendered (transportation and in-school time)
• Classroom materials and supplies
17
Evaluation Methods
• Quarterly classroom and student visits by Lead DPS Nurse to assess quality of services and fidelity of procedures
• Monthly EC Nurse Professional Learning
Communities (PLC) meetings • Continuous collaboration between Lead Nurse and
EC Executive Director • EC Nurses conduct MU classroom safety
assessments (share reports with principals and EC Central Services) three times per year
• Beginning, middle and end of year review meetings
with nursing agency representatives
18
Questions
19
Date: October 6, 2016
Academic & Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019
Staff Liaison Present: Elizabeth Cross Phone: (919) 560-2029
Laura Parrott (919) 560-2376
Main Points:
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction requires each district to
submit a plan for serving AIG students every three years according to statute
Article 9B enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1996.
North Carolina School districts have transformed their local AIG programs and
plans to align with the NC AIG Program Standards approved by the State Board
of Education in July 2009 and revised in December 2012.
Administration presents this topic for discussion and approval.
Fiscal Implications:
These efforts are supported through state and local funds.
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________
20
Academic Services
Executive Summary
Project Title: Approval of Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019
Project Team: Jacqueline Ellis, Assistant Superintendent, Middle School Teaching, Learning, & Leadership
Elizabeth Cross, Director of Advanced Academics
Laura Parrott, Coordinator of Advanced Academics
Project Description:
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction requires each district to submit a plan every three years
according to statute Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08) enacted in 1996. Each LEA’s plan must show a
district response to each of the six NC AIG Program Standards which were approved by the State Board of
Education on July 9, 2009. The NC AIG Program Standards serve as a statewide framework and guide LEAs
to develop, coordinate, and implement thoughtful and comprehensive AIG programs. These standards reflect
Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08) and nationally-accepted best practices in gifted education.
The 2016-2019 plan has been revised to include alignment with DPS Office of Academic Services:
Teaching, Learning, and Leadership’s Instructional Framework
Bottom Line Expectations
Goals for the District
District Improvement Plan
.
Changes to previous plan include:
Lowering of composite score for Intellectually Gifted Identification from 97% to 96% composite score.
Creation of a district level AIG Review Team to look at nominated students who may have special
circumstances.
Adoption of High School Advanced Academics Lead Teachers.
Timeline Immediate Implementation through 2016-2019
Impact on resources AIG allotments, Advanced Academics budget
Alignment to local, state, or federal
policies
Alignment with state policy Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08
Intended Outcomes More comprehensive Advanced Academics program
Board Action Consent
Communication and Next Steps Notify DPS District and School Staff, Parents, and Community
Members
21
Academically and Intellectually
Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019
Beth Cross
Director Advanced Academics
1
Laura Parrott Coordinator
Advanced Academics
Academic and Student Services Work Session October 6, 2016
22
Advanced Academics Goals
2016-2019
Communication
Diversity
Rigor/Relevance
K-2 Programming
9-12 Programming
3-8
AIG Achievement
Growth
23
1: Student Identification
Establish District Review Team Articulate Portfolio of Evidence Ensure consistency
Strengthen intentionality of K-2 programming Strengthen district-wide network of collaboration Develop and implement a standard for high school Honors courses
2: Differentiated Curriculum & Instruction
24
3: Personnel and Professional
Development
Articulate role of AIG Specialist (80/20) Continue professional development
Implement opportunities for compacted and advanced coursework, 3-12 Facilitate communication among and between teachers and schools Create opportunities for professional collaboration
4: Comprehensive Programming
within Total School Community
25
5: Partnerships
Continue current partnerships and seek additional sponsorships and opportunities.
Utilize AIG District Advisory Council.
Implement K-8 AIG Partnership Committees.
6: Program Accountability Weekly walkthroughs.
Use data to drive decisions.
5 26
Date: October 6, 2016
Academic & Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Athletic Eligibility
Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Alisa McLean Phone: (919) 560-2550
Larry McDonald (919) 560-3742
Mary Griffith (919) 560-2123
Main Points:
The North Carolina State Board of Education revised the Interscholastic Athletics Policy.
The new policy reflects a grade level change wherein students may participate in
interscholastic competition. The grade level changed from 7 – 12 to 6 – 12.
The North Carolina State Board of Education is giving LEA’s the choice to allow sixth
graders to play middle school sports, with the exception of football. If approved this change
would impact the local board policy 3505.
These changes will begin January 18, 2017. Administration is requesting that in accordance
with the North Carolina State Board of Education Policy ID Number HRS-D-001, students be
allowed to participate.
Fiscal Implications:
No fiscal implications exist for 6th
graders to participate in sports since programs would
not be expanded.
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________
27
Project Title:
Athletic Eligibility
Project Team:
Dr. Alisa McLean, High School Assistant Superintendent, Teaching, Learning & Leadership
Larry McDonald, District Athletic Director
Mary Griffith, Magnet Administrator
Project Description:
Topic 1: Sixth Grader Participation in Sports
The State Board of Education revised the Interscholastic Athletics Policy on Thursday, August 4,
2016. Administration is proposing that sixth graders be allowed to participate in every sport
except football as outlines in the new policy. The new policy changed the grade level wherein
students may participate in interscholastic competition from grades 7 – 12 to grades 6 – 12.
Currently, the Durham Public Schools Board Policy states in section 3505 that “students in
grades 7-12 may participate.” The new policy from the state indicates student participation will
be a local decision as to whether or not, and the degree to which, the new policy will be
implemented.
Administration is requesting the adoption of Policy HRS-D-001, “Athletic Participation State of
North Carolina”, beginning January 18, 2017. The policy coincides with the beginning of the
new semester as well as academic eligibility.
Administration is not requesting additional funding. The intent is to transition this policy into the
scope of the current athletic team composition and current team maximums.
The district Athletic Director met with middle school coaches and it was determined that
students in grade 6 should be allowed to try out for and join existing middle school athletic
teams.
Timeline Spring 2017
Impact on resources No impact. We are not requesting any change in current status
Alignment to local, state or
federal policies Board Policy 3505 if approved will need to updated to reflect
the change in grade level participation
Intended outcomes Students in 6th
grade and students would be allowed to
participate in state approved sports for 6th
graders
Board Action Discussion/Action
Communication and Next Steps Notify Principals, Teachers and parents of the adjustment to
BOE Policy 3505
Academic and Support Services Executive Summary
28
Athletic Eligibility
Dr. Alisa McLean, H.S. Asst. Superintendent
Larry McDonald, District Athletic Director
Mary Griffith, Magnet Coordinator
Academic and Student Services Work Session
October 6, 2016
29
Topic 1: SBE Athletic Middle
Grades Policy Revision
• The new SBE policy changed the grade
level at which students may participate in
interscholastic competition from grades 7
– 12 to grades 6 – 12.
• The Administration is requesting that 6th
grade students are allowed to participate
in approved sports beginning spring
semester 2017.
• No fiscal implications.
Date: October 6, 2016
Academic & Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Pre-K Sliding Scale
Staff Liaison Present: Suzanne Cotterman Phone: (919) 287-4189
Mary Griffith (919) 560-2000
John McCain (919) 560-2000
Main Points:
The Administration is proposing a sliding scale be implemented in all DPS locally funded
preschool programs beginning in 2017-2018. At this time, the programs that are fully
funded locally are at Watts and Morehead.
The proposed sliding scale is aligned and competitive with the average childcare costs in
Durham County and at this time there are no charges associated with existing Durham
Public School Programs.
Fiscal Implications:
New income stream for preschool sustainability
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________
38
Project Title: Pre-K Sliding Scale
Project Team: Aaron Beaulieu, Suzanne Cotterman, Mary Griffith, John McCain
Project Description: Pilot for 2017-2018
In light of recent budget cuts and increased program costs, revenue generated from the Pre-K
Sliding Scale may off-set district costs and increase potential for sustaining programs.
Administration is requesting that the BOE approve the pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale for
implementation in the 2017-18 school year in locally funded Pre-K programs.
The intended outcome of this request is to provide high quality Pre-K offerings for a diverse
community, kindergarten readiness, and enhance the sustainability of current program costs.
Administration proposes the following timeline:
● Propose Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale and attain BOE approval, October 2016
● Create and adopt policies for Pre-K Sliding Scale, November -December 2016
● Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale (Watts and Morehead Montessori Elementary Schools),
August 2017
● Communicate Pre-K Sliding Scale beginning November, 2016 (magnet fair
November 5, 2016, magnet application period January 9-31, 2017 and assignment
period, March 1, 2017)
● Develop future expansion plan for Whitted Preschool Center and other preschool
programs, March-May 2017
● Evaluate Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale implementation, modify and make any fee
adjustments, November 2017
● Communicate Pre-K Sliding Scale updates/modification, November 2017 (magnet
fair November 2017, magnet application period January 2018, and assignment period,
March 2018)
● Implement Pre-K Sliding Scale in DPS Pre-K Programs, July 2018
The implementation of the sliding scale will require:
● Verification of Eligibility: Definition of family size, frequency of eligibility
determination, proof of residency, income, etc.
Academic and Support Services
Executive Summary
39
● Management of project (receipt/processing of application, assignment processes,
income verification/documentation, family communication, collection of funds,
procedures for non-payment, district management of funds, development of online
calculator for parents, documentation/verification of income, billing, collection
hardships/payment exceptions/not enough seats, creation of application
Administration has considered alignment to local, state or federal policies including the
following:
● The Pre-School Task Force has focused on providing universal programming for
students entering DPS. Committee discussions highlighted the need for high quality
programming and that “universal programming” does not necessarily mean “free.”
● DPS Board of Education discussions and questions led staff to explore options for a
Pre-K Sliding Scale. This also coincided with the 2016 Magnet Review presented to
the BOE, May 2016. The BOE approved eight recommendations, one of which was
to consider a sliding scale for Watts and Morehead Montessori Elementary schools.
● Proposed Pre-K Sliding Scale is competitive with average childcare costs per Durham
County rates
● Proposed Pre-K Sliding Scale is aligned with 200% of national poverty rate
● There are no charges for existing Pre-K programs (Title I, NC Pre-K, EC)
Timeline Fall 2018
Impact on resources Additional revenue would be generated to cover some of the
expense of local preK
Alignment to local, state or
federal policies This change would only impact locally funded Pre-K school
programs
Intended outcomes Implement a sliding scale in locally funded Pre-k programs
Board Action Discussion and Action
Communication and Next Steps Develop a clear communication plan that reaches a variety of
audiences to ensure awareness
40
Pre-K Sliding Scale Adjust Cells K4 & K5
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12.50%
30,000$ 300$ 263$ 225$ 188$ 150$ 113$ 75$ 1.00% 1
35,000$ 350$ 306$ 263$ 219$ 175$ 131$ 88$ 2.00% 2
40,000$ 400$ 350$ 300$ 250$ 200$ 150$ 100$ 3.00% 3
45,000$ 450$ 394$ 338$ 281$ 225$ 169$ 113$ 4.00% 4
50,000$ 1,000$ 875$ 750$ 625$ 500$ 375$ 250$
55,000$ 1,100$ 963$ 825$ 688$ 550$ 413$ 275$
60,000$ 1,200$ 1,050$ 900$ 750$ 600$ 450$ 300$
65,000$ 1,950$ 1,706$ 1,463$ 1,219$ 975$ 731$ 488$
70,000$ 2,100$ 1,838$ 1,575$ 1,313$ 1,050$ 788$ 525$
75,000$ 2,250$ 1,969$ 1,688$ 1,406$ 1,125$ 844$ 563$
80,000$ 3,200$ 2,800$ 2,400$ 2,000$ 1,600$ 1,200$ 800$
85,000$ 3,400$ 2,975$ 2,550$ 2,125$ 1,700$ 1,275$ 850$
90,000$ 3,600$ 3,150$ 2,700$ 2,250$ 1,800$ 1,350$ 900$
95,000$ 3,800$ 3,325$ 2,850$ 2,375$ 1,900$ 1,425$ 950$
100,000$ 4,000$ 3,500$ 3,000$ 2,500$ 2,000$ 1,500$ 1,000$
105,000$ 4,200$ 3,675$ 3,150$ 2,625$ 2,100$ 1,575$ 1,050$
110,000$ 4,400$ 3,850$ 3,300$ 2,750$ 2,200$ 1,650$ 1,100$
115,000$ 4,600$ 4,025$ 3,450$ 2,875$ 2,300$ 1,725$ 1,150$
120,000$ 4,800$ 4,200$ 3,600$ 3,000$ 2,400$ 1,800$ 1,200$
125,000$ 5,000$ 4,375$ 3,750$ 3,125$ 2,500$ 1,875$ 1,250$
130,000$ 5,200$ 4,550$ 3,900$ 3,250$ 2,600$ 1,950$ 1,300$
135,000$ 5,400$ 4,725$ 4,050$ 3,375$ 2,700$ 2,025$ 1,350$
140,000$ 5,600$ 4,900$ 4,200$ 3,500$ 2,800$ 2,100$ 1,400$
145,000$ 5,800$ 5,075$ 4,350$ 3,625$ 2,900$ 2,175$ 1,450$
150,000$ 6,000$ 5,250$ 4,500$ 3,750$ 3,000$ 2,250$ 1,500$
155,000$ 6,200$ 5,425$ 4,650$ 3,875$ 3,100$ 2,325$ 1,550$
160,000$ 6,400$ 5,600$ 4,800$ 4,000$ 3,200$ 2,400$ 1,600$
165,000$ 6,600$ 5,775$ 4,950$ 4,125$ 3,300$ 2,475$ 1,650$
170,000$ 6,800$ 5,950$ 5,100$ 4,250$ 3,400$ 2,550$ 1,700$
175,000$ 7,000$ 6,125$ 5,250$ 4,375$ 3,500$ 2,625$ 1,750$
180,000$ 7,200$ 6,300$ 5,400$ 4,500$ 3,600$ 2,700$ 1,800$
Household Size
Ho
use
ho
ld In
com
e
41
Pre-K Sliding Scale
Aaron Beaulieu, Chief Financial Officer
Suzanne Cotterman, Director
Mary Griffith, Magnet Specialist
John McCain, Assistant Superintendent
Academic and Student Services Work Session
October 6, 2016
42
Background
• The Pre-K Task Force explored the expansion of Pre-K offerings
• Task Force Committee discussions highlighted the need for high
quality programming and noted that “universal programming” does not necessarily mean “free”
• Current DPS Pre-K Programs include Exceptional Children, Title I and, NC Pre-K • New programming will target future Pre-K students that
demonstrate developing skills and provide additional options for diverse populations
• Watts and Morehead Montessori currently provide high quality
Montessori programs at no charge
43
Process used to Create
Pre-K Sliding Scale
• Compared proposed scale to other state scales
• Used poverty as a baseline • Considered “phase-in” of amount owed
by program participants • Consideration provided for household
size and amount of income 44
Impact on Resources
• Verification of eligibility
• Staff responsibilities
• Fiscal accountability & sustainability
• Management of project
45
46
Questions
47
Date: October 6, 2016
Academic & Student Services Work Session
PRECIS
Agenda Item: Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM)
Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman Phone: (919) 560-3874
John McCain (919) 560-3730
Tim Gibson (919) 560-3755
Main Points:
The elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM) system provides an
analysis of the mClass and End-of-Grade assessment data over the previous three years via:
o cohort trends,
o subgroup performance,
o rapid gains schools and
o best practices.
The DIMM will assist in providing a common framework for understanding both district and
individual school performance in order to focus our improvement efforts for students in
grades Kindergarten through three.
As a part of the review, we will discuss student growth, best practices and notable trends.
Additionally, we will highlight schools exceeding expectations and identify areas of
improvement.
Fiscal Implications:
No fiscal implications exist at this time. This presentation is for the purposes of
information.
Purpose
Information Discussion Action Consent
Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________
48
Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures
GROWING THE COHORT:
Digging Deeper into K-3 Data
Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for Academic Services
John McCain, Tim Gibson, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Teaching, Learning and Leadership Director of Elementary Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Academic and Student Services Work Session October 6, 2016
49
District Improvement Monitoring
Measures (DIMM)
Elementary Monitoring Update
Selected Data Sets 1. mClass TRC Reading 2. Cohort Trends 3. Subgroup Performance 4. Rapid Gain Schools 5. Best Practices
50
Are students
growing in K-3
reading over
time?
(GROWTH)
Are students on
track and
academically
prepared?
(Benchmark
Attainment)
What do the
schools
experiencing
consistent
improvement do
differently?
How have schools performed on mClass over 3 years?
Which schools are experiencing the most success overall and with subgroups over 3 years?
What is the readiness of incoming Kindergarten students?
Who are the rapid support schools and what best practices are in place to support improvement?
Academic
Status
Subgroup
Performance
Rapid
Growth
Schools
DIMM K-8 Methodology
How are cohorts of students performing over time?
What are the patterns in the performance of cohorts?
51
mClass Reading 3D Assessment
• K-3 reading assessment tool used to inform instruction
Target Audience
• Teachers assess students 1on1 3 times per year (BOY, MOY and EOY)
Assessment Cycle
• DIBELS – assesses early literacy skills
• TRC – assesses text reading and comprehension
Assessment Components
52
Text Reading and Comprehension
Authentic Text
Student reads text
individually. Completes
follow-up tasks to examine reading and
comprehension
Follow-up Tasks
Oral Comprehension
Recalling or Retelling
Writing
Scores Range:
Four Levels
Far below proficient
Below proficient
Proficient
Above proficient
Proficiency Benchmarks
K – Level D
First – Level J
Second – Level N
Third – Level P
53
KINDERGARTEN
ENTRY DATA
54
2012-2016 Entering Kindergarten
Between years 2012 and 2014, a 14% increase was observed in student being far below the benchmark on BOY
School Year
Far Below Below Proficient Above Total Kindergartners
Percent with
mClass scores
2012-2013 45.3 4.1 44.8 5.8 2,940 91.5
2013-2014 44.7 4.5 46.0 4.0 3,140 95.2
2014-2015 59.0 3.6 33.6 3.9 2,963 93.5
2015-2016 47.0* 9.0 40.0 4.0
55
Kindergartners’ BOY mClass Proficiency
Level in 2014-2015, by School
% of students far below proficient on BOY
Schools
87%+ YE Smith Eastway
RN Harris CC Spaulding
60-76% Merrick-Moore Parkwood Eno Valley Glenn Lakewood Bethesda WG Pearson
Hope Valley Forest View EK Powe Oak Grove Fayetteville Street Little River
40-59% Burton Southwest Club Blvd Hillandale
Mangum Sandy Ridge School Creekside Spring Valley
<22% Easley Holt George Watts
Pearsontown Morehead Montessori
56
Students Entering Kindergarten: EOY mClass
Proficiency in 2014-15
At the end of kindergarten, 61.2 percent of students scored at or above proficient on the mClass assessment.
• Of kindergartners who scored far below proficient on the beginning-of-year assessment, 44.3 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.
• Of kindergartners who scored below proficient on the beginning-of-year assessment, 82.1 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.
• Of kindergartners who scored far below proficient on the beginning-of-the-year assessment, 83.8 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.
• Nearly all (99.0%) of kindergartners who scored above proficient in kindergarten entry scored above proficient at the end of kindergarten.
57
COHORT COMPARISONS
58
Grade 1314 1415 1516
K 66.02 60.02 64.71
1 60.22 48.70 47.42
2 62.29 55.92 51.89
3 62.31 61.01 61.10
mClass Cohort Performance 2013-2016
The cohort analysis here represents EOY performance at each grade level. The Durham Children’s Data Center conducted a correlation study and found kindergarten MOY scores were strongly related to 1st and 2nd grade EOY mClass scores.
59
Kindergarten
Eno Valley
Lakewood
Hope Valley
Fayetteville Street
First
Powe
Pearsontown
Eastway
Holt
Second
Holt
Morehead
Eno Valley
Spaulding
Trends and Patterns Across Schools
A few patterns
were highlighted
within schools. A
deeper dive will be
conducted with each principal
60
Students are growing over time
Cohort performance is
inconsistent
Kindergarten EOY data has shown
consistent positive gains
First and Second Grade
performance is inconsistent
Summary of Cohort
Performance, 2013-2016
61
Grade 3: mClass EOY, BOG and
EOG Comparison
School Year
mClass BOY
mClass EOY
Difference in BOY & EOY
BOG (GLP)
EOG Grade 3 Reading (GLP)
Difference In BOG & EOG
2013-14 55.0% 62.3% 7.3 22.6% 48.8% 26.2
2014-15 53.5% 61.0% 7.5 21.1% 45.4% 24.4
2015-16 50.5% 61.1% 10.6 23.7% 45.7% 22.0
2016-17 47.0%* - - 23.8% - -
62
CHANGE BETWEEN
BOY AND EOY ACROSS
3 YEARS
63
K-3 Benchmark Attainment,
2013-2016
School Year BOY District EOY Difference
2013-2014 55.29 62.78 7.49
2014-2015 50.78 56.28 5.50
2015-2016 47.53 56.22 8.39
* District average change over three years is 7.1
64
K-3 Benchmark Attainment EOY,
2015-2016 Performance Bands Schools Schools
0-30% Glenn
31%-50% Bethesda Burton Fayetteville Street Eno Valley Eastway Forest View Hope Valley Holt
Harris Lakewood Merrick-Moore Oak Grove Pearson Sandy Ridge Spaulding Smith
51%-70% Club Creekside Easley Hillandale Parkwood
Little River Mangum Powe Spring Valley Southwest
71% Watts
Morehead Pearsontown 65
Difference between BOY and EOY
2015-2016
20+ • Little River
• Parkwood
• Mangum
13+ • Lakewood
• Burton
• Oak Grove
• Eastway
• RN Harris
10+ • Smith
• Easley
• Southwest
• Pearson
• Hillandale
• Glenn
• Forest View
• Holt
66
School 15-16 BOY
14-15 BOY
13-14-BOY
Average BOY
15-16 EOY
14-15 EOY
13-14 EOY
Average EOY
Elementary A
33.88% 20.70% 34.22% 29.60 47.37% 40.47% 34.16% 40.0
• District change over time 7.1
• 13 schools exceeded the district average
• 4 of the 13 schools had over 15 points average change over time
• Inconsistency was observed within schools between grade levels
Elementary A - Average Change over time 10.40
Change Over Time by School
67
School Average Change
School Average Change
Lakewood Elementary 20.02 Club Boulevard Elementary 6.78
Little River Elementary 19.49 Merrick-Moore Elementary 6.20
Parkwood Elementary 17.42 Creekside Elementary 6.17
Mangum Elementary 15.48 Spring Valley Elementary 5.79
Y E Smith Elementary 12.83 Pearsontown Elementary 4.95
Eastway Elementary 11.40 Glenn Elementary 4.5
Southwest Elementary 10.77 Hope Valley Elementary 4.3
R N Harris Elementary 9.79 Burton Elementary 4.21
Oak Grove Elementary 9.69 Holt Elementary 4.04
Forest View Elementary 9.52 C C Spaulding Elementary 3.29
E K Powe Elementary 8.70 Easley Elementary 2.01
Hillandale Elementary 8.29 Bethesda Elementary 1.90
Eno Valley Elementary 8.09 Morehead Montessori 1.28
Fayetteville Street Elem 6.95 Sandy Ridge Elementary -0.61
W G Pearson Elementary 6.95 George Watts Elementary -4.20 68
SUBGROUP OUTCOMES
69
mClass and EOG Subgroup
Analysis
mClass Subgroups
EOG Subgroups
SWD
LEP
AIG
SWD
LEP
AIG
mClass and EOG Subgroup
performance composites were
analyzed to determine patterns of
performance across grade levels
and schools
70
mClass Rapid Gains Schools over 3
years
Students with Disabilities
+5 Gain Schools Bethesda,
Creekside, Easley, Eno Valley, Fayetteville
Street, Holt, Little River, Harris, Spring Valley
Limited English Proficient + 5 Gain Schools
Burton Eastway, Fayetteville Street, Holt,
Harris, Pearson, Smith, Mangum,
Parkwood
Academically Gifted
+ 5 Gain Schools
Powe, Easley, Oak
Grove, Parkwood
mClass
71
EOG Composite Rapid Gains Schools
over 3 years
Students with Disabilities
+5 Gain Schools
Bethesda, Burton, Creekside,
Hillandale, Forest View, Mangum,
Parkwood, Harris, Smith, Spring
Valley, Southwest
Limited English Proficient + 5 Gain Schools
Eastway, Eno Valley, Creekside, Hillandale, Holt,
Forest View, Fayetteville St.,
Spring Valley
Academically Gifted
+ 5 Gain Schools
EOG Composite
Burton, Eno Valley,
Lakewood, EK Powe, Pearson 72
EOG Subgroup Performance:
Ethnicity over 3 years
Subgroups by
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
White
EOG subgroup data was
analyzed over three years to
determine patterns and
positive changes in performance across schools
and grade levels
73
mClass Subgroup Performance:
Ethnicity, 2013-2016
Black
• Glenn
• Holt
• Morehead
• Parkwood
Hispanic
• Smith
• Mangum
• Holt
• Eastway
• Parkwood
• Fayetteville St.
White
• Holt
• Powe
• Creekside
• Easley
• Morehead
• Mangum
74
EOG Subgroup Performance
2013-2016 based on Ethnicity
Black
• Morehead
• Parkwood
• Forest View
• Bethesda
• Fayetteville. St.
• Southwest
Hispanic
• Eastway
• Eno Valley
• Parkwood
• Pearsontown
• Harris
• Spring Valley
• Burton
• Club
• Creekside
• Hillandale
• Forest View
White
• Holt
• Eno Valley
• Hope Valley
• Southwest
• Spring Valley
• Forest view
• Club Blvd
• Hillandale
75
RAPID GAIN SCHOOLS
76
Rapid Achievement Gain Schools
by Composite Subgroup
School Asian Black Hispanic EDS LEP SWD Eastway Elementary 4.7 0.6 5.5 6.2 0.9 Easley Elementary 23.3 2.2 2.4 3.8 1.2 1.1 Creekside Elementary 2.5 0.7 13.5 7.4 6.1 14.1 Forest View Elementary 7.1 13.2 11.6 5.2 17.8 Fayetteville Street Elementary 9.1 18.3 11.3 19.6 Mangum Elementary 8.4 34.4 19.1 25.1 Parkwood Elementary 1.3 17.6 10.3 13.7 3 7.3 Spring Valley Elementary 4.1 21.8 8.5 7.1 8.6
77
Data Profile:
Eastway Elementary
30
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 650 611 584
Attendance 95.0 94.1 95.0
Free/Reduced Lunch 100%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 2.5 0.3 0.3
Asian 0.3 0.2 0.2
Black 47.9 43.7 43.5
Hispanic 45.2 52.7 51.9
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 1.7 1.3 2.1
Two or More Races 2.5 1.8 2.1
ED 97.5 73.0 97.3
LEP 27.5 30.6 34.1
EC 11.1 8.8 10.3
AIG 7.3 3.7 1.3
Performance Composite Overall
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 18.4/10.4 21.6/13.4 23.8/15.2
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
NotMet/-4.9 Met/-0.2 Met/-1.4
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
45% 19% 36% 32%
78
Data Profile:
Easley Elementary
31
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 584 575 582
Attendance 96.9 96.1 96.5
Free/Reduced Lunch 30.72%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.0 0.2 0.2
Asian 4.6 4.7 5.0
Black 20.2 19.7 17.3
Hispanic 13.9 16.5 20.1
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 59.6 57.0 53.3
Two or More Races 1.7 1.9 4.4
ED 27.7 28.4 30.3
LEP 8.7 11.0 13.6
EC 10.8 10.6 12.0
AIG 17.7 16.3 15.1
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 63.3/55.3 63/53.8 64.6/57.7
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Met/-1.8 NotMet/-2.4 Met/+1.6
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
16% 13% 71% 21%
79
Data Profile:
Creekside Elementary
32
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 877 915 918
Attendance 96.1 95.1 96.1
Free/Reduced Lunch 44.74%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.0 0.8 0.3
Asian 7.3 6.1 6.2
Black 27.5 27.5 26.3
Hispanic 26.2 27.1 26.1
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 33.9 34.4 36.6
Two or More Races 3.9 4.0 4.5
ED 45.0 46.6 44.8
LEP 21.6 22.0 24.3
EC 8.0 7.8 8.7
AIG 16.5 15.0 13.9
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 60.5/52.8 62.6/52.5 65.9/58.1
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Exceeded/+2.9 Met/+0.1 Met/+1.0
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
23% 37% 40% 20%
80
Data Profile:
Forest View Elementary
33
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 689 701 736
Attendance 95.9 95.1 95.8
Free/Reduced Lunch 63.11% Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.2 0.1 0.1
Asian 6.1 5.4 4.6
Black 25.1 25.3 23.3
Hispanic 33.5 34.0 35.9
Pacific Islander 0.2 0.0 0.0
White 31.1 31.1 31.4
Two or More Races 3.9 4.1 4.6
ED 61.0 63.6 61.1
LEP 25.6 26.3 30.4
EC 11.5 10.1 13.0
AIG 19.4 17.0 14.9 Performance Composite Overall
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 57.6/48.3 63.3/55.2 65.4/55.9
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Met/+1.5 Exceeded/+3.9 Met/+0.9
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
32% 29% 39% 23%
81
Data Profile:
Fayetteville Street Elementary
34
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 274 270 281
Attendance 94.7 93.6 94.8
Free/Reduced Lunch 100%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.4 0.7 0.4
Asian 0.4 0.0 0.0
Black 75.9 68.9 69.8
Hispanic 22.3 28.5 28.5
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 0.7 0.0 0.7
Two or More Races 0.4 1.9 0.7
ED 95.6 67.0 97.3
LEP 14.2 21.9 22.3
EC 12.0 10.0 11.0
AIG 8.0 7.1 5.7
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 26.1/13.8 33.1/20.0 36.9/25.2
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Met/+1.8 Met/+0.4 Met/-1.6
Teacher Experience32
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
32% 32% 36% 16%
82
Data Profile:
Mangum Elementary
35
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 377 348 327
Attendance 96.2 95.0 95.0
Free/Reduced Lunch 25.91%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.0 0.0 0.3
Asian 1.1 0.9 0.6
Black 11.1 10.1 10.1
Hispanic 7.2 6.3 4.3
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 78.3 81.3 83.1
Two or More Races 2.1 1.4 1.5
ED 26.3 27.0 24.5
LEP 3.0 2.3 1.8
EC 14.6 13.5 14.7
AIG 15.2 15.8 21.4
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 74.7/63.3 74.4/66.7 84.3/76.5
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Exceeded/+3.5 NotMet/-2.2 Exceeded/+4.6
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
4% 8% 88% 8%
83
Data Profile:
Parkwood Elementary
36
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 590 591 534
Attendance 94.7 94.2 95.2
Free/Reduced Lunch 67.75%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.0 0.2 0.0
Asian 3.9 3.7 4.5
Black 49.3 56.4 55.9
Hispanic 25.8 24.2 24.4
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0
White 15.6 11.2 10.1
Two or More Races 5.4 4.4 5.1
ED 71.8 72.4 71.7
LEP 15.4 15.4 18.5
EC 12.2 12.7 17.9
AIG 8.3 6.2 6.8
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 39.6/30.1 45/36.5 52.2/41.2
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Met/-0.1 Exceeded/+5.1 Exceeded/+2.8
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
40% 12% 49% 13%
84
Data Profile:
Spring Valley Elementary
37
Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Total Enrollment 622 596 526
Attendance 96.1 95.4 96.3
Free/Reduced Lunch 67.14%
Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
American Indian 0.5 0.8 0.4
Asian 2.1 2.5 3.0
Black 53.7 53.9 54.4
Hispanic 24.4 27.7 29.5
Pacific Islander 0.5 0.0 0.0
White 15.6 12.9 10.8
Two or More Races 3.2 2.2 1.9
ED 63.8 63.9 62.1
LEP 12.4 14.4 18.3
EC 11.1 11.6 15.6
AIG 6.7 4.1 5.3
Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015
2015-2016 Preliminary
GLP/CCR 47.2/36.4 50.2/38.1 52.1/42.7
Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Met/-0.3 Met/0 NotMet/-2.8
Teacher Experience
% 0-3 Experience
% 4-10 Experience
% 10+ Experience
% Teacher Turnover Rate
20% 33% 48% 19%
85
EMERGING PRACTICES
86
Best Practices Interviews and
Focus Groups
1. Rapid Support Schools will be interviewed to include administration and teachers
2. Best practices summary will be developed and shared at the next work session
3. Round Table discussions will be conducted with each principal to take a deeper dive into the date
87
Catch-up Keep-up Move-up
40
Catch-Up Growth
Keep-Up Growth
Move-Up Growth
Above Proficient
Proficient
Below Proficient
Far Below 88
Wrap up and Feedback
41
Please provide us with feedback using post-it notes at your table on this session
Things that worked well
Things that did not work well
Remaining questions
Aha moments
89
DISCUSSION
90
91