turnaround external operator presentation · a state approved district-managed turnaround plan...
Post on 22-May-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
TURNAROUND EXTERNAL OPERATOR PRESENTATION
Impacted Schools
222
Northwestern Middle School
Matthew Gilbert Middle School
Lake Forest Elementary School
Principal: Cassandra Thomas Principal: Jamelle Goodwin Principal: Shawn Platts
2
Trajectory of performance for each of the three schools
School NameSchool
Year
Total Points Earned
Total Components
Percent of Total Possible
PointsPercent Tested Grade
LAKE FOREST ES2016-17 264 7 38 100 D2015-16 234 7 33 100 D2014-15 112 3 37 99 D
MATTHEW W. GILBERT MS2016-17 333 9 37 96 D2015-16 284 9 32 97 D2014-15 152 5 30 98 F
NORTHWESTERN MS2016-17 361 9 40 97 D2015-16 315 9 35 95 D2014-15 145 5 29 94 F
3
Statute for Differentiated Accountability1008.33 2016-2017 Provisions 1008.33 2017-2018 Provisions
Schools earning a double “D” or an “F” had a year to plan interventions
Schools earning a double “D” or an “F” must immediatelyimplement interventions
Schools with double “D” or “F” not required to have an MOU with union
Schools with double “D” or “F” are required to have an MOU with union
Schools with double “D” or “F” not required to have a state-approved plan
A state approved district-managed turnaround plan required for double “D” or “F” schools
After three consecutive grades below “C,” 5 turnaroundoptions:
1. District-Managed Turnaround2. Reassigning the students to another school;3. Closing the school and reopening as a charter; 4. Contracting with an outside entity to operate the
school; or5. Hybrid combination of options
After three consecutive grades below “C,” 3 turnaround options:
1. Reassigning the students to another school:2. Closing the school and reopening as a charter; or 3. Contracting with an outside entity to operate the
school, including a district-managed charter school.
4
TOP 1 Options Timeline
Oct 16FDOE sent the
memo with the TOP 1 Options, with an initial due date of
Oct. 27
Oct 18State Board Meeting
Approved TOP 2 plans and made
initial TOP 3 selections
Oct 23-26Schools remained in
contact with the Chancellor
regarding the TOP 1 timeline.
Oct 16Districts with TOP 1
Schools met with Commissioner
Stewart regarding TOP 1 Options
Oct 25Initial district
meeting with CATheld at
Northwestern.
Oct 27Initial date provided
by the DOE fordistricts to submit their TOP 1 option
Nov 9Second CAT Meeting
scheduled forMatthew Gilbert
Middle School
Nov 15Extension due datefor TOP 1 Option for
2018-2019
5
TOP 1 Options*
Close school and transfer all students to a higher
performing school withinthe district
Transfer
Close and turn the
school over to a highperforming charter
school
CharterTakeover
Turn the school over to ahigh performing
management companyor district-operated
charter
ManagementCompany
*FDOE is authorized to allow districts an additional year to implement plan.
6
7
Legislative Requirements
8
Selection Process for External Operator(s)
November 20, 2017 December 1, 2017 December 7, 2017 December 21, 2017
Contacted Prospective EOs –6 contacted and 3
responded
Invited all Prospective EOs that demonstrated interest
to present their plan
Prospective EOs presented to fact
finding committee
Contacted Prospective EOs with follow up fact-finding
questions
1 2 3 4
9
Review of 2017-2018 Turnaround Timeline
November 15, 2017TOP 1
Intervention decision due to
FDOE
December 5, 2017
TOP 2 plans due to FDOE January 31, 2018
Recommended date for districts to submit
signed contract with selected charter or entity if option was selected for TOP 1
July, 2018Project
release of school grades
August, 2018
Deadline to submit revision
September, 2018
TOP Plans submitted to
the State Board
November, 2017Established Fact
Finding Committee to Research Prospective
External Operators
10
PROPOSALS
11
Proposal 1: Learning Sciences International
About:• Founded in 2002 by Michael D. Toth and
fellow university faculty members – 15 years of experience
• Partners with schools and districts to strategically achieve significant, sustainable gains in student learning
• Provides professional development and research-based school improvement solutions to K–12 teachers and leaders
12
Category HighlightContract Time of Support
5-year Transitional Plan
Curriculum Framework
• Innovative, student-centered instructional learning system grounded in real world application task and the new 21st Century Standards; planned curriculum transition over a 2 year period.
• Comprehensive professional development plan for leaders, teachers, and support personnel
Progress Monitoring & Assessments
Teacher created standards based learning targets and success criteria monitored through LSI’s Standards Tracker Technology Tool along with other district monitoring tools currently in use.
School Operational Plan
� Will have primary oversight of all school operations as they affect the quality of instructional leadership, curriculum, instruction, and student learning. DCPS will have primary oversight of non-instructional aspects of school operations including but not limited to transportation, food services, facility maintenance and security, student support services (ELL, ESE) equipment, furniture, etc..
� All school staff remain DCPS employee’s (teachers, assistant principals, and other staff)
Community & Family Engagement
Will collaborate with DCPS to create a comprehensive communication and family engagement plan. Plan will focus on collaborativeengagement with area media, parents, civic leaders, and influential community partners.
Cost Per School � Comprehensive Needs Assessment - $62,250� Readiness Phase - $ 81,750� Year 1 and Year 2 Operations: $ 995,000 � Year 3 - $495,000; year 4 - $ 395, 000 and year 5 - $ 198,000
Learning Science InternationalProposal Highlights
13
409
799
362
241328 326
659
387
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Enrollment Comparisons – Palm Beach
Pahokee ES Gove ES Glade View ES Rosenwald ES Cunningham/Canal Point Pioneer Park Belle Glade ES Lake Forest ES
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
14
1
35
64
0
20
97
12
3
72
23
2
33
96
22
2 4
92
1
12
98
15
1
25
73
1
12
98
14
3
27
70
0
13
99
19
3
35
61
1
30
99
22
3
35
61
1
25
97
20
3 2
92
3 1
84
14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons – Palm Beach
Pahokee Gove Glade View Rosenwald Cunningham Canal Pt Pioneer Park Belle Glade Lake Forest
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
15
366418
747
904852
387
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Enrollment Comparisons – Pinellas, Pasco, & Seminole
Bear Creek ES Gulfside ES Pine Crest ES Midway ES Idyllwilde ES Lake Forest
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
16
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
39%
5%
52%
5%1%
80%
16%
58%
23%
10% 9% 8%
87%
11%
28%31%
36%
6%10%
40%
17%
16%
25%
53%
6% 6%
84%
17%18%
31%
42%
8% 11%
82%
16%
3% 2%
92%
3%1%
84%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparison (Pinellas, Pasco, and Seminole)
BEAR CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GULFSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PINE CREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
MIDWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IDYLLWILDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
17
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementInformational
Baseline Grade 2015
Grade 2016
2014-15
2015-16
Change 2014-15 to
2015-162014-
152015-
16
Change 2014-15 to
2015-162014-
152015-
16
Change 2014-15 to
2015-16PAHOKEE ES 26 33 7 37 49 12 33 31 -2 D CGOVE ES 33 27 -6 45 32 -13 34 22 -12 D DGLADE VIEW ES 39 25 -14 38 38 0 39 43 4 D CROSENWALD ES 26 33 7 61 63 2 19 26 7 D BCANAL POINT ES 26 30 4 36 47 11 21 31 10 F CPIONEER PARK ES 26 27 1 52 48 -4 43 38 -5 D CBELLE GLADE ES 24 31 7 28 40 12 14 26 12 F C
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
18
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement
Baseline Grade 2015
Grade 2016
Grade2017
14-15
15-16
16-17
Change 14-15 to
15-16Change15-16
14-15
15-16
16-17
Change 14-15 to 15-
16
Change 15-16 to 16-
1714-15
15-16
16-17
Change 14-15 to 15-
16
Change 15-16 to 16-
17BEARCREEK ES 35 35 47 0 12 49 46 61 -3 12 37 36 54 -1 17 D C A
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
19
Learning Science InternationalLake Forest Comparison Groups
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement
Baseline Grade 2016
Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to 16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to 16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to 16-17
GULFSIDE ES 45 45 0 43 39 -4 28 31 3 D C
PINE CREST ES 26 32 6 30 35 5 29 19 -10 F D
MIDWAY ES 37 42 5 41 47 6 26 32 6 D C
IDYLLWILDE ES 34 38 4 44 42 -2 25 32 7 D D
20
Advantages• Elementary schools accounted for
twelve of the fifteen schools presented as evidence of proven track record
• One hundred percent of the schools presented improved in English Language Arts (ELA) gains and bottom quartile
• Experienced with supporting turnaround efforts in multiple elementary schools in Florida
Concerns• Some schools submitted for review did
not demonstrate demographics comparable to Lake Forest Elementary
• Math and Science did not show the same level of improvement as Language Arts
• Overall, this company showed an improvement of ninety percent or higher in only four of the twelve areas reviewed
LSI ConsiderationsLake Forest Elementary
21
648
840
435
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Enrollment Comparisons
Lake Shore MS Pahokee Middle/Senior Gilbert MS
Learning Science InternationalMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
22
Learning Science InternationalMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
1%
29%
69%
1%
11%
97%
23%
2%
40%
57%
2% 3%
94%
19%
5%3%
88%
4%1%
89%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparison
LAKE SHORE MIDDLE SCHOOL (Palm Beach) PAHOKEE MIDDLE-SENIOR HIGH MATTHEW W. GILBERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
23
Learning Science InternationalMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2015
Grade 201614-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16LAKE SHORE MS 23 28 5 25 36 11 26 34 8 37 53 16 F CPAHOKEE MS/HS 32 31 -1 30 37 7 44 49 5 45 56 11 C C
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
MATTHEW GILBERT MS 14 28 19 43 D
24
Advantages• Lake Shore Middle School, in Palm
Beach, improved in English Language Arts (ELA) gains and bottom quartile
• Lake Shore Middle School, in Palm Beach, is comparable in size, percent of minority and Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) students to both Gilbert and Northwestern
Concerns• Limited evidence of turnaround
performance in middle schools similar to Matthew Gilbert.
• Elementary schools accounted for twelve of the fifteen school grades, while high schools accounted for two school grades and one school grade was attributed to a middle school.
• All schools submitted for review did not demonstrate demographics comparable to Matthew Gilbert Middle School.
LSI ConsiderationsMatthew Gilbert Middle School
25
648
840
524
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Enrollment Comparisons
Lake Shore MS Pahokee Middle/Senior Northwestern MS
Learning Science InternationalNorthwestern Comparison Groups
26
Learning Science InternationalNorthwestern Comparison Groups
1%
29%
69%
1%
11%
97%
23%
2%
40%
57%
2% 3%
94%
19%
5%1%
91%
2% 0%
89%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
LAKE SHORE MIDDLE SCHOOL (Palm Beach) PAHOKEE MIDDLE-SENIOR HIGH NORTHWESTERN MIDDLE SCHOOL
27
Learning Science InternationalNorthwestern Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2015
Grade 201614-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16 14-15 15-16
Change 2014-15 to 2015-
16LAKE SHORE MS 23 28 5 25 36 11 26 34 8 37 53 16 F CPAHOKEE MS/HS 32 31 -1 30 37 7 44 49 5 45 56 11 C C
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
NORTHWESTERN MS 17 23 22 51 D
28
Advantages• Lake Shore Middle School, in Palm
Beach, improved in English Language Arts (ELA) gains and bottom quartile
• Lake Shore Middle School, in Palm Beach, is comparable in size, percent of minority and Free/Reduced Lunch (FRL) students to both Gilbert and Northwestern
Concerns• Limited evidence of turnaround
performance in middle schools similar to Matthew Gilbert.
• Elementary schools accounted for twleve of the fifteen school grades, while high schools accounted for two school grades and one school grade was attributed to a middle school.
• All schools submitted for review did not demonstrate demographics comparable to Matthew Gilbert Middle School.
LSI ConsiderationsNorthwestern MS
29
Proposal 2: Educational Directions
About:• Midsized educational consulting company
with 20 years of service to educators• Professional development initiatives• Created computer systems to track and connect data• Has patents on several educational processes to improve school
performance through a student-focused approach for designing a successful school year
30
Category HighlightContract Time of Support
2- 3 year transitional plan
Curriculum Framework
• Will use a number of strategies: Core approach will be to address the rhythm of the learner year and the types of experiences students need to have in each part of the and development focusing on equal opportunity in experience as learner and performer.
• Academic and management rituals and routines will be used to build an equal experience basis for all students and performers.• Comprehensive professional development plan for leaders, teachers, and support personnel
Progress Monitoring & Assessments
Will develop a true “plan backwards – deliver forwards” curriculum dependent upon extensive monitoring of not only student scores, but also the learning and performing competencies, attitudes, and perceptions required for the student to demonstrate his or her potential as a performer and to make successful transitions to the next achievement level. Additional progress monitoring will incorporate district monitoring tools currently in use.
School Operational Plan
• Determined by the current status of the school in terms of size, current culture and climate, curriculum and materials resources, state and district expectations. A core of roles that will be common include: Site Director and Content Specialist all employees of Ed. Directions.
• All other school-based staff will remain DCPS employee’s (Principal, assistant principals, teachers and other staff), but screened and selected by Ed. Directions.
Community &Family Engagement
Through collaboration with school personnel and district staff will implement a comprehensive family engagement plan. Plan will focus on collaborative engagement with parents, students, civic leaders, and other community partners
Cost Per School � Spring Comprehensive Needs Assessment - $62, 500� Year 1: $ 325,000 to $350,000 (based upon school needs assessment)� Subsequent years $225, 000 to $250,000 (based upon continued school needs)
Educational DirectionsProposal Highlights
31
Educational DirectionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
551 555
387
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
PALMETTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
32
Educational DirectionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
7%
72%
18%
3%
22%
73%
13%6%
2%
87%
5%1%
94%
10%3% 2%
92%
3% 1%
84%
14%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
PALMETTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
33
Educational DirectionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementWriting
Achievement
Baseline Grade 2011 Grade 2012
10-11
11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-1210-11
11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-1210-11
11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-1210-11
11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12NORTH SHORE K-8 38 31 -7 50 54 4 20 35 15 51 78 27 D B
15-16
16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-1715-16
16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17
Baseline Grade 2016 Grade 2017
PALMETTO ES 34 42 8 39 42 3 D C
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
34
Advantages• Experienced with supporting turnaround efforts in multiple high poverty
elementary schools in Florida • Palmetto ES showed growth in all areas of their school grade calculation from
2015-16 to 2016-17 and is similar to Lake Forest in size, percent of minority students, FRL students, and students with disabilities
• 90% of the schools improved in math bottom quartile and one hundred percent of the schools improved in science and social studies.
• Overall, schools presented improvement in seven out of twelve accountability areas.
• The percentage of total points improved for all eleven schools receiving grades • Ten of the eleven school grades, or ninety-one percent, showed improvement
of at least one letter grade. • All grades improved to a C or higher with two grades reaching an A.
Concerns• Elementary schools
accounted for two of the 11 schools presented as evidence of proven track record
• Not all schools served had identical demographics to Lake Forest elementary
Educational Directions ConsiderationsLake Forest Elementary
35
Educational DirectionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
1045
848
720
906
555435
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
SHELLEY S. BOONE MIDDLE SCHOOL DENISON MIDDLE SCHOOL WESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
CRYSTAL LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 MATTHEW W. GILBERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
36
Educational DirectionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
13%
65%
21%
2%
26%
63%
14%
30% 32% 34%
3% 5%
57%
13%
26%
42%
28%
4%
11%
68%
16%
36% 35%
23%
6% 4%
69%
19%
6%2%
87%
5%1%
94%
10%5% 3%
88%
4%1%
89%
16%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
SHELLEY S. BOONE MIDDLE SCHOOL DENISON MIDDLE SCHOOL WESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
CRYSTAL LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 MATTHEW W. GILBERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
37
Educational DirectionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2016
Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17SHELLEY S. BOONE MS 24 29 5 26 26 0 26 31 5 40 51 11 D CDENISON MS 35 35 0 25 24 -1 28 30 2 51 53 2 D CWESTWOOD MS 30 28 -2 29 28 -1 24 27 3 50 60 10 D CCRYSTAL LAKE MS 32 34 2 31 41 10 32 35 3 39 56 17 D C
10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12Baseline
Grade 2010Grade 2011
NORTH SHORE K-8 38 31 -7 50 54 4 51 78 27 20 35 15 D B
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
MATTHEW GILBERT MS 14 28 19 43 D
38
Advantages• Middle schools accounted for five of the eleven schools managed by
Educational Directions.
• Ninety percent of the schools improved in math bottom quartile and one hundred percent of the schools improved in science, social studies, and middle school acceleration.
• Overall, schools presented improvement in seven out of twelve accountability areas.
• The percentage of total points improved for all eleven schools receiving grades.
• Ten of the eleven school grades, or ninety-one percent, showed improvement of at least one letter grade.
• All grades improved to a C or higher with two grades reaching an A.
Concerns• Not all schools served had
identical demographics to Matthew Gilbert Middle School.
• Inconsistent improvement in English Language Arts and Math Achievement.
Educational DirectionsMatthew Gilbert MS
39
Educational DirectionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
1045
848
720
906
555 524
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
SHELLEY S. BOONE MIDDLE SCHOOL DENISON MIDDLE SCHOOL WESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
CRYSTAL LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 NORTHWESTERN MIDDLE SCHOOL
40
Educational DirectionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
13%
65%
21%
2%
26%
63%
14%
30% 32% 34%
3% 5%
57%
13%
26%
42%
28%
4%
11%
68%
16%
36% 35%
23%
6% 4%
69%
19%
6%2%
87%
5%1%
94%
10%5%
1%
91%
2% 0%
89%
18%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
SHELLEY S. BOONE MIDDLE SCHOOL DENISON MIDDLE SCHOOL WESTWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL
CRYSTAL LAKE MIDDLE SCHOOL NORTH SHORE K-8 NORTHWESTERN MIDDLE SCHOOL
41
Educational DirectionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2016
Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17SHELLEY S. BOONE MS 24 29 5 26 26 0 26 31 5 40 51 11 D CDENISON MS 35 35 0 25 24 -1 28 30 2 51 53 2 D CWESTWOOD MS 30 28 -2 29 28 -1 24 27 3 50 60 10 D CCRYSTAL LAKE MS 32 34 2 31 41 10 32 35 3 39 56 17 D C
10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12 10-11 11-12
Change 10-11 to
11-12Baseline
Grade 2010Grade 2011
NORTH SHORE K-8 38 31 -7 50 54 4 51 78 27 20 35 15 D B
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
NORTHWESTERN MS 17 23 22 51 D
42
Advantages• Middle schools accounted for five of the eleven schools managed by
Educational Directions.
• Ninety percent of the schools improved in math bottom quartile and one hundred percent of the schools improved in science, social studies, and middle school acceleration.
• Overall, schools presented improvement in seven out of twelve accountability areas.
• The percentage of total points improved for all eleven schools receiving grades.
• Ten of the eleven school grades, or ninety-one percent, showed improvement of at least one letter grade.
• All grades improved to a C or higher with two grades reaching an A.
Concerns• Not all schools served had
identical demographics to Northwestern Middle School.
• Inconsistent improvement in English Language Arts and Math Achievement.
Educational DirectionsNorthwestern MS
43
Proposal 3: Turnaround Solutions, Inc.
About:• A minority-owned business specializing in school reform• Employs a team of educators with decades of experience
in education dedicated to improving the performance of schools
• All team members recently worked in challenged schools with a successful track record of improving student performance
• Specializes in assisting schools increase academic performance in less than a year and sustain increases in three years.
44
Category HighlightContract Time of Support
2 -3 year transitional plan based upon school need
Curriculum Framework
• Turnaround Solutions will use a number of strategies to improve student learning and academic achievement but centered upon DCPS’s currently adopted curriculum.
• Adjustments or modifications to learning plans will be develop based upon student current grade level of proficiency. • TS will also develop a professional development plan for leaders, teachers, and other support personnel as identified in the school’s initial
status review.
Progress Monitoring & Assessments
Turnaround Solutions will develop a curriculum based upon student current grade level proficiencies, identify all curriculum materials to be used, both current district and/or newly identified curriculum resources, and utilize currently adopted district monitoring tools in conjunction with TS identified progress monitoring tools.
School Operational Plan
• The management structure at the school will be developed based upon the site analysis and identified leadership and instructional staff criteria identified during review. Controlling factors will include but not be limited to performance evaluation data, teacher VAM data, school size, current culture and climate, and other data points. Although all school-based staff will remain DCPS employee’s (Principal, assistant principals, teachers and other staff), Turnaround Solutions will supervise, train, and evaluate all instructional personnel.
• DCPS will maintain oversight of all non-instructional staff and personnel.
Community &Family Engagement
Turnaround Solutions through collaboration with school community and staff will implement a plan to engage both students, parents/guardians, and other stakeholders as active partners in strategies for increasing student achievement and self efficacy.
Cost Per School • Elementary - 262 days of service at $500,000 • Middle school - 262 days at $750,000
Turnaround SolutionsProposal Highlights
45
Turnaround SolutionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
851
511
387 406 387
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY C. A. WEIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PINE ESTATES (387)**
RUFUS E. PAYNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ** LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
46
Turnaround SolutionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
23%
49%
23%
4%
26%
68%
10%9%5%
79%
6%1%
91%
16%
34%
3%
61%
2% 1%
65%
18%
2% 0%
98%
1%
91%
20%
3% 2%
92%
3% 1%
84%
14%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY C. A. WEIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PINE ESTATES (387)**
RUFUS E. PAYNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ** LAKE FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
47
Turnaround SolutionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement
Baseline Grade 2016 Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY 37 42 5 37 43 6 29 29 0 50 79 29 D C
C. A. WEIS ES 11 14 3 16 26 10 13 21 8 F C
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
48
Turnaround SolutionsLake Forest Comparison Groups
Performance Comparison GroupsELA Achievement Math Achievement Science Achievement Grade 2017
LAKE FOREST ES 32 42 18 D
School Year School Name
% In Lowest Reading Level(s)
% Level 2 and Above
FCAT Reading
% Level 3 and Above
FCAT Reading
% Level 2 and Above FCAT Math
% Level 3 and Above FCAT Math
% 3 and Above on
FCAT Writing Grade
1999-2000 PINE ESTATES ES* 71 50- 29 58- 16 74+ D2000-2001 PINE ESTATES ES 73 75 27 57- 14 81+ D
School Year School Name% at Level 3 or
Higher in Reading% at Level 3 or Higher in Math
% Meeting the Writing Standard Grade
2001-2002 PINE ESTATES ES 46 28 61 C2002-2003 RUFUS E. PAYNE ES* 43 19 76 C2003-2004 RUFUS E. PAYNE ES 46 24 89 D2004-2005 RUFUS E. PAYNE ES 57 42 82 B
*prior year F
49
Advantages• Weis Elementary School is similar to
Lake Forest in all subgroups• Weis Elementary School showed
improvement in all areas of their school grade calculation from 15-16 to 16-17.
• Overall presented schools displayed improvement in seven out of twelve areas reviewed.
Concerns• Elementary schools accounted for
one of the 4 schools presented as evidence of proven track record
• Not all schools served had identical demographics to Lake Forest elementary
Turnaround SolutionsLake Forest Elementary
50
Turnaround SolutionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
173
851
671
779
435
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY WARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH ** MATTHEW W. GILBERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
51
Turnaround SolutionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
7%10%
80%
2% 4%
80%
13%
23%
49%
23%
4%
26%
68%
10%
18%
5%
65%
11%
0%
84%
20%
58%
10%
25%
7%3%
43%
20%
5% 3%
88%
4%1%
89%
16%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY WARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH ** MATTHEW W. GILBERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
52
Turnaround SolutionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2016
Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS 23 31 8 24 36 12 25 29 4 54 77 23 D CGLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY 37 42 5 37 43 6 29 29 0 50 79 29 D CWARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 25 24 -1 22 23 1 39 25 -14 25 42 17 D D
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
MATTHEW GILBERT MS 14 28 19 43 D
53
Turnaround SolutionsMatthew Gilbert Comparison Groups
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
MATTHEW GILBERT MS 14 28 19 43 D
School Year School Name
% at Level 3 or Higher in Reading
% at Level 3 or Higher in Math
% Meeting the Writing
Standard Grade2005-2006 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH* 68 72 91 A
School Year School Name
% at Level 3 or Higher in Reading
% at Level 3 or Higher in Math
% Meeting the Writing
Standard
% at Level 3 or Higher in Science Grade
2006-2007 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 63 67 89 45 A2007-2008 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 68 72 90 43 A2008-2009 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 68 71 91 47 A
*prior year A
54
Advantages• Two of the three middle schools presented
demonstrated improvement in the areas of ELA achievement, Math achievement, and learning gains.
• Out of the four school grades received, the percentage of total points improved for all schools.
• Three out the four school grades, or seventy-five percent, showed academic improvement.
• Overall presented schools displayed improvement in seven out of twelve areas reviewed.
Concerns• Schools presented did not show
comparable improvement in the bottom quartiles or in science.
• One of the four schools presented remained a grade of D, while no school grades improved to an A.
Turnaround SolutionsMatthew Gilbert Middle School
55
Turnaround SolutionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
173
851
671
779
524
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Number of Students
Enrollment Comparisons
SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY WARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH ** NORTHWESTERN MIDDLE SCHOOL
56
Turnaround SolutionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
7%10%
80%
2% 4%
80%
13%
23%
49%
23%
4%
26%
68%
10%
18%
5%
65%
11%
0%
84%
20%
58%
10%
25%
7%3%
43%
20%
5%1%
91%
2% 0%
89%
18%
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
% White % Hispanic % Black % Other % ELL % FRL % SWD
Demographic Comparisons
SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS GLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY WARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH ** NORTHWESTERN MIDDLE SCHOOL
57
Turnaround SolutionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
School Name
ELA Achievement Math Achievement Science AchievementSocial Studies Achievemenet
Baseline Grade 2016
Grade 201715-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17 15-16 16-17
Change 15-16 to
16-17SCHOOL OF SUCCESS ACADEMY-SOS 23 31 8 24 36 12 25 29 4 54 77 23 D CGLOBAL OUTREACH CHARTER ACADEMY 37 42 5 37 43 6 29 29 0 50 79 29 D CWARRINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 25 24 -1 22 23 1 39 25 -14 25 42 17 D D
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
NORTHWESTERN MS 17 23 22 51 D
58
Turnaround SolutionsNorthwestern Comparison Groups
Performance Comparison Groups
ELA Achievement Math AchievementScience
AchievementSocial Studies Achievement Grade 2017
NORTHWESTERN MS 17 23 22 51 D
School Year School Name
% at Level 3 or Higher in Reading
% at Level 3 or Higher in Math
% Meeting the Writing
Standard Grade2005-2006 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH* 68 72 91 A
School Year School Name
% at Level 3 or Higher in Reading
% at Level 3 or Higher in Math
% Meeting the Writing
Standard
% at Level 3 or Higher in Science Grade
2006-2007 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 63 67 89 45 A2007-2008 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 68 72 90 43 A2008-2009 ORANGE PARK JUNIOR HIGH 68 71 91 47 A
*prior year A
59
Advantages• Two of the three middle schools presented
demonstrated improvement in the areas of ELA achievement, Math achievement, and learning gains.
• Out of the four school grades received, the percentage of total points improved for all schools.
• Three out the four school grades, or seventy-five percent, showed academic improvement.
• Overall presented schools displayed improvement in seven out of twelve areas reviewed.
Concerns• Schools presented did not show
comparable improvement in the bottom quartiles or in science.
• One of the four schools presented remained a grade of D, while no school grades improved to an A.
Turnaround SolutionsNorthwestern Middle School
60
CONSIDERATIONS
61
INDICATOR
ContractorLearning Science
InternationalEducationalDirections
Turnaround Solutions
# of Elementary Schools Served 12 2 4
% of Schools with at least 1 letter grade improvement 83% 100% 100%
# of schools with at least 1 letter grade improvement 10 2 4
% of schools that improved in Total Points earned 92% 100% 100%
Avg. percentage points earned in ELA proficiency 2.75 pts 0.5 pts 9.75 pts
Avg. percentage points earned in Math proficiency 3.08 pts 3.5 pts 12.75 pts
Avg. percentage points earned in Science proficiency 3. 08 pts 7.5 pts 4.0 pts
Performance Indicators
62
INDICATOR
ContractorLearning Science
InternationalEducationalDirections
Turnaround Solutions
# of Middle Schools Served 2 5 4
% of Schools with at least 1 letter grade improvement 50% 100% 50%
# of schools with at least 1 letter grade improvement 1 5 2
% of schools that improved in total points earned 50% 100% 100%
Avg. percentage points earned in ELA proficiency 2.0 pts 5.0 pts 3.0 pts
Avg. percentage points earned in Math proficiency 9.0 pts 2.4 pts 4.5 pts
Avg. percentage points earned in Science proficiency 6.5 pts 5.6 pts -2.0 ptsAvg. percentage points earned in Social Studies proficiency 13.5 pts 10.0 pts 23.0 ptsAvg. percentage points earned in Acceleration proficiency 16.0 pts 23.75 pts 21.0 pts
Performance Indicators
63
RespondentSchool
Lake Forest Northwestern Matthew Gilbert
LearningScience
International
• Worked in multiple elementary schools in Florida.
• All schools increased ELA gains.
• Worked in one middle school with like demographics.
• The school increased in ELA and ELA Lowest 25% gains.
• Worked in one middle school with like demographics.
• The school increased in ELA and ELA Lowest 25% gains.
Educational Directions
• Extensive work in Florida.• Familiar with Duval County.• 91% of schools in Florida
increased at least one letter grade in a year.
• Extensive work in middle schools.
• All middle schools increased in percentage of points.
• Previously worked in feeder pattern.
• Extensive work in middle schools.
• All middle schools increased in percentage of points.
• Previously worked in feeder pattern.
Turnaround Solutions
• Worked in school with like demographics
• The school increased in all accountability areas in one year.
• Experience in feeder pattern.
• All middle schools increased in percentage of points.
• Experience in feeder pattern.
• All middle schools increased in percentage of points.
ATTR
IBUT
ES
64
Superintendent Recommendation
Lake Forest: Educational Directions, Inc
Matthew Gilbert:
Northwestern:
Educational Directions, Inc
Educational Directions, Inc
65
Conditions that Could Impact Contract Language Negotiations
66
Next Steps
1
2
3
4
BoardConsensus
Contract Negotiations
Board Approval
Submit to Florida Department of
Education
67
Discussion
68
top related