Background & Update: “Academic”

Improvement PlanDr. Dana T. Bedden

Superintendent of Schools

T. David MyersChief Financial Officer

School Board Budget Work SessionJanuary 31, 2017

1

2Leadership

CommunityDistrict/School

Strong Relationships

School BoardTeacher Assoc.

StudentsAthleticsStudent-

OrganizationsStaff

Central OfficeHealthcare

Aging-Workforce

Superintendent

ParentsBusinessesHigher Ed Facilities

FoundationsSupporters

Groups

Joint School Improvement and AccountabilityEquals Success

Accountability

Improving Schools Involves Everyone

ESSACourtsDOE

TestingLegislative

Funding (+/-)Compliance

LegalSchool Safety

Choice

State Requirements22.1-253-13:6

Each local school board shall adopt a division-wide comprehensive, unified, long-range plan based on data collection, an analysis of the data, and how the data will be utilized to improve classroom instruction and student achievement. The plan shall be developed with staff and community involvement and shall include, or be consistent with, all other division-wide plans required by state and federal laws and regulations. Each local school board shall review the plan biennially and adopt any necessary revisions. Prior to the adoption of any division-wide comprehensive plan or revisions thereto, each local school board shall post such plan or revisions on the division's Internet website if practicable, and, in any case, shall make a hard copy of the plan or revisions available for public inspection and copying and shall conduct at least one public hearing to solicit public comment on the division-wide plan or revisions.

3

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is an organizational management activity that is used to set priorities, focus energy and resources, strengthen operations, ensure that employees and other stakeholders are working toward common goals, establish agreement around intended outcomes/results, and assess and adjust the organization's direction in response to a changing environment. It is a disciplined effort that produces fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, who it serves, what it does, and why it does it, with a focus on the future. Source: Balanced Scorecard Institute: Strategy Management Group

4

Strategic Plan

A strategic plan is a document used to communicatewith the organization the organizations goals, the actions needed to achieve those goals and all of the other critical elements developed during the planning exercise.

Source: Balanced Scorecard Institute: Strategy Management Group

5

Steps to Strategic Planning

There are many different frameworks and methodologies for strategic planning and management. While there are no absolute rules regarding the right framework, most follow a similar pattern and have common attributes.Many frameworks cycle through some variation on some very basic phases:

Source: Balanced Scorecard Institute: Strategy Management Group

6

Steps to Strategic Planning

1) analysis or assessment, where an understanding of the current internal and external environments is developed, 2) strategy formulation, where high level strategy is developed and a basic organization level strategic plan is documented3) strategy execution, where the high level plan is translated into more operational planning and action items, and 4) evaluation or sustainment / management phase, where ongoing refinement and evaluation of performance, culture, communications, data reporting, and other strategic management issues occurs.

Source: Balanced Scorecard Institute: Strategy Management Group

7

Why an “Academic” Improvement Plan (AIP)

• Arrived in RPS January 2014 (middle of then school Board’s tenure), limited to no staff in place, temps, several looming retirements, etc.

• Existing Strategic Plan sun-setting in 2015, no identifiable previous action taken recently, limited time and resources available

• Not intended to be a new strategic plan, but connected to existing plan where possible

• RPS needed research based plan (this was Board adopted school division plan-not administration plan) to:– Set priorities, – Focus energy,– Focus resources request and allocation,– Strengthen operations, – Establish common goals, – Agreement around intended outcomes/results, and – Assess and adjust RPS’s direction.

8

“Academic” Improvement Plan (AIP)

The purpose of the “Academic Improvement” Action Management Plan was to accelerate the progress of all student groups in Richmond Public Schools in meeting or exceeding the targeted standards. The goal of this work is to increase academic achievement and reduce achievement gaps between and among all student groups and to reach proficiency in academic standards by developing and implementing a plan with short-term and long-term impact that focuses on five core practices (see next slide).The AIP was grounded in the research-based practices of ACT’s National Center for Educational Achievement (NCEA) and based on evidence of best practices in high performing districts, schools and classrooms that have been successful in preparing students for college, careers, and service in the community.

9

AIP Developed Based on Core Practice Framework

10

AIP and Connection to Previous Strategic Plan

Prior to establishing our deliverables we considered the current state of our system in terms of student performance, the collective professional capacity of our teachers and administrators, and features of the most recent strategic plan that were relevant to improving teaching and learning. In the document, you will find references to connect it with the previous strategic plan where possible in the project scope.

Example: Theme 1: Curriculum and Academic GoalDistrict Practice: Provide clear, prioritized learning objectives by grade and subject that all students are expected to master.RPS Strategic Plan: Develop and implement engaging, innovative, and rigorous curriculum that will optimize learning.

11

Why the Framework?12

AIP - Research Based

We needed a compass to guide our work towards improvement and had limited time and resources.

The Framework was developed by a reputable organization that had researched the practices of 479 school systems chosen based on a careful analysis that identified consistent school performance over at least three years in multiple subjects. They also indicated they studied the findings of experts in effective schools research—most notably, Dr. Larry Lezotte of Effective Schools in Okemos, Michigan. Lezotte and Levine’s Unusually Effective Schools1 monograph (1990) remains a classic in the review and analysis of research related to effective school practices.

13

Why the Framework was aValuable Tool

• Provides a structure for organizational functions most directly impacting the improvement of instruction.

• Features those observable, interdependent practices found to be present in different quantity or quality in consistently high performing systems.

• Is a composite picture built from many individual cases.• Contains findings that emanate from schools with somewhat varied

demographics and in a number of states.• Is not a compendium of programs and strategies to adopt.• Is continually updated with visits to high- and average-performing

schools.• Provides critical actions (important part of a good plan) for District,

School and Classroom.Source: Just4Kids www.justkids.org (see handouts)

14

AIP Performance Targets

The Academic Improvement Plan has eight externally reportable performance targets (SMART Goals) for the 3 years (multi-year plan) tied to:1) State Accountability: SOL Accreditation2) Federal Accountability: Annual Measureable Objectives3) Early Childhood Readiness using PALS4) Participation in Advanced Programs (equity opportunities for IB,

AP, dual degree, etc.), 5) Number of students matriculating into college6) Career and Technical Education completion, and 7) Attendance Rate8) Graduation Rate

15

AIP Funding

The Academic Improvement Plan was a $23.5 million investment request over 3 years for an average cost of $7.8 million per year. Re-occurring cost $11.03 million.

• The plan has never been fully funded• The plan has received limited funded, approximately 23%

to date• RPS identified and re-directed over $1.8 million dollars to

help partially implement (piece meal) the plan.

16

AIP Results

The Academic Improvement Plan as articulated during the first year as a result of limited to no funding (approx. 23%) would/have slow to mixed and/or limited progress. Other issues have also contributed to the slow to limited progress.Snapshot:• SOL Accreditation – 17 schools fully accredited compared to 11, number of schools showed progress• Reading – improved 2% points since 2013-2014 SY (growth but missed performance target)• Math – improved 3% points since 2013-2014 SY• PALS – declined 10% points since 2013-2014 SY• Dual Enrollment – increased 127 students• PSAT 10 – declined 7 students since 2013-2014 SY after initial increase of 31 students• AP declined 130 students since 2013-2014 SY• IB increased 7 students since 2013-2014, after initial increase of 30 students• Two-Four Year College – increased 15 students (growth but missed performance target)• CTE Completers – decreased 64 students• Graduation Rate – decreased .2% points since 2013-2014 SY after initial increase of .9% points

17

The Big Question –similar or different?

Division Level Academic Review (3/17) Academic and Student Success Leadership and Governance Operations and Support Services Human Resource Leadership Community Relations & Communications

“Academic” Improvement Plan Themes Student Learning Expectations & Goals Staff Selection, Leadership & Capacity

Building Instructional Tools Programs & Strategies Monitoring, Compilation, Analysis & Use of

Data Recognition, Intervention, & Adjustment

2010-2015 Strategic Plan Goals Develop and implement engaging, innovative,

and rigorous curriculum that will optimize learning

Adopt a system-wide approach to inspire and empower students beyond traditional academics.

Recruit and retain the highest quality faculty, staff and administrators and maximize their effectiveness

Design, develop, and implement new buildings and technology infrastructure that are adaptable to new curriculum and instruction and evolving needs of individuals and communities

Engage all facets of the community as partners in accomplishing our mission and objectives

Align people and resources strategically to maximize impact

Education Compact (In Progress) Agreement among all Richmond

elected leaders as a shared framework for establishing goals and metrics for success and accountability

What was funded in the AIP?

19

3-Year Budget20

Initial Budget Request in FY16AIP FY16 FY17 FY18 Total FTE’s

Team 1 160,000 - - 160,000 -Team 2 6,769,000 5,880,000 5,880,000 18,529,000 2.0Team 3 1,015,000 1,000,000 - 2,015,000 10.0Team 4 210,000 280,000 - 490,000 7.0Team 5 1,355,000 450,000 450,000 2,255,000 22.0TOTAL 9,509,000 7,610,000 6,330,000 23,449,000 41.0

FY16 New Funding21

AIP FY16 New Funding

Team 1 -

Team 2 1,960,000 3-Professional Development Days

Team 3 -

Team 4 -

Team 5 780,000 ASPIRE

TOTAL 2,740,000

Funded AIP Positions in FY16

Position Description FTEPrincipal 1.0 Teachers 6.0 Guidance 1.0 Social Worker 1.0 Security 1.0 Office Associate 1.0 Instructional Assistant 2.0

13.0

22

3-Year Budget vs. FundingAIP

YEARFY16 9,509,000 FY17 7,610,000 FY18 6,330,000 TOTAL 9,509,000 17,119,000 23,449,000 Total Investment

Funded ($2.7M in FY16 & FY17)(3 PD Days & Aspire) 5,480,000

Percent Funded 23%

Limited Funding23

Annual Recurring Cost24

FY16 FY17 FY18 TotalAcademic Improvement Plan 9,509,000 7,610,000 6,330,000 23,449,000 3-Year Investment

Professional Development Years 2 & 3 (5,880,000) (5,880,000) (11,760,000)

Wireless Infrastructure-8 Classrooms (650,000) - (650,000)

TOTAL 9,509,000 1,080,000 450,000 11,039,000 Recurring Budget

Recurring Funds ($2.7M per year) 2,740,000

Percent Funded 24%

Requested AIP in FY17

Note: Additional 6 professional development days not requested in FY17. Also, no funding received for AIP in FY17.

25

Academic Improvement Plan Amount FTE

AIP Team2; PD Materials Non-Title I Schools 28,000

AIP Team3; Electives Teachers 483,553 7.0

AIP Team3; Electives Teachers - Dedicated Activities Directors 207,237 3.0

AIP Team4; Instruction Assessment Analysts 324,238 4.0AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Software/Equipment/Materials 433,000 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Teachers [4 Core; 2 Exceptional Education]

418,422 6.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program- Principal 114,388 1.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Guidance Counselor 82,015 1.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Instructional Assistants 76,941 2.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Social Worker 74,655 1.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program- Clerical 59,020 1.0

AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Security 47,542 1.0

TOTAL EXCLUDED ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2,349,011 27.0

Requested AIP in FY18

26

ACADEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN FTETeacher Contracts - Add 6 Professional Development Days 3,400,000 AIP Team3; Electives Teachers - Dedicated Activities Directors 207,237 3.0 AIP Team4; Instruction Assessment Analysts 324,238 4.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Software/Equip/Materials 433,000 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Teachers [4 Core; 2 Except Ed] 418,422 6.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Principal 114,388 1.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Guidance Counselor 82,015 1.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Instructional Assistants 76,941 2.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Social Worker 74,655 1.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Clerical 59,020 1.0 AIP Team5; MS Over-Age Under Credited Program - Security 47,542 1.0 TOTAL FY18 5,237,458 20.0

Reality…Change is Process!

27

Current FutureTransition

Three Phases of Change• The Current State - The Current State is how things are done today. It

is the collection of processes, behaviors, tools, technologies, organizational structures and job roles that constitute how work is done.

• The Transition State - The Transition State is messy and disorganized. It is unpredictable and constantly in flux. The Transition State is often emotionally charged - with emotions ranging from despair to anxiety to anger to fear to relief. During the Transition State, productivity predictably declines.

• The Future State - The Future State is where we are trying to get to. It is often not fully defined, and can actually shift while we are trudging through the Transition State. The Future State is supposed to be better than the Current State in terms of performance.

28

Things Change Quickly & Possibly Explode (purposeful or accidental)!

29

The Big Question30

Over-Age/Under-credited31

Table 1: Over-age Data Comparison Student Group 2014-2015 2016-2017 Elementary School 234 359 Middle School 288 309 Total 522 668

Table 2: Over-age Data for Students with Disabilities (SWD) 2016-2017

Grade Number of SWD Percent of SWD 1st 4 8% 2nd 12 19% 3rd 28 37% 4th 26 33% 5th 34 37% 6th 33 32% 7th 34 37% 8th 44 39% Total 215 32%

Professional Development32

PDCC – approximately 40 people, 12 teachers, REA, Principals, etc. Goal was to build systemic professional capacity Combination of school-based and district-wide professional learning for teachers and

instructional staff. Cost - six additional days of professional development is $3.4 million. The cost of three

additional professional development days is $1.7 million. The cost of one additional day of professional development is approximately $566,000.

Impact on teacher contract - on average, teachers could expect to earn approximatelyan additional $275 per day. The exact compensation will be determined by Human Resources based upon each teacher’s contract status.

Needs Assessment Conducted Some Topics Offered were:

Awakening the Conversation – Conversation Spanish CTE Specific PD Aspen (RPS student information system) Curriculum Pacing and Resource Guides by subject area Special Education – Low Incidence Focus

Professional Development8/27 to 9/3/2015

33

Responses = 1649

Professional Development8/27 to 9/3/2015

34

Responses = 1649

Scale: 5 = highest1 = lowest

Professional Development8/26 to 8/29/16

35

Form Responses = 587

Session Quality = 86.2% excellent/good, 11.2% fair Session Content = 87.7% excellent/good, 10.4% fair Session Delivery = 86.7% excellent/good, 10.4% fair Relevance = 86.4% excellent/good, 9.9% fair New Information = 90.3% excellent/good, 6.6% fair

Professional DevelopmentPlan A – 6 Days

36

Plan A – 6 DaysThe following would be Teacher Work Days/Professional Development Days:

August 25, 2017October 9, 2017 (Columbus Day)December 18, 2017June 21, 2018*June 22, 2018*

One Flex Day**

*Currently, teachers have 3 TWDs on June 18, 19 & 20. One of the 2 additional days would be a culminating event for the district focused on reflection on accomplishments and priorities for the upcoming school year.

** Flex Day: Teachers and instructional staff have their choice of face-to-face or online PD to be used for one PD day.

Professional DevelopmentPlan B

37

Plan B – 3 Days:

October 9 (Columbus Day)December 18June 21 (District-wide Culminating Event)

Professional DevelopmentPlan C

38

Plan C – 1 Day:

October 9, 2017 (Columbus Day) or December 18, 2017

Professional DevelopmentPlan D

39

Plan D - Teacher Technology Option:

Divide $3.4 million for 2 purposes:

• Allocate approximately half ($1.7 million) of the requested $3.4 million to the purchase of technology devices for teachers

• The remaining ($1.7 million) would be allocated toward technology training for teachers and enhancements in the area of safety and security

• 1 day dedicated to technology training

Background: “Academic” Improvement Plan

40