mcps board meeting › mabe › mcpsmd › board.nsf › files...mcps board meeting share-out:...

© Education Resource Strategies, Inc. 2018

MCPS Board MeetingShare-out: ERS/MCPS Partnership

June 11, 2019

Agenda

• Refresh from April Board session

• Summary of study insights

• Deep dive: teaching quality

• Deep dive: time and attention

2

While overall MCPS outperforms peer MD districts, only some student groups experience this outperformance

3

51%

75%

47% 46% 44%

28%

21%

47%

63%

41%

46%

32%

20% 20%

52%

63%

51% 50%

36%

28%25%

45%

58%

39%

45%

28%

18%22%

Overall Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups

(Monitoring)

Non-FARMsBlack or African-American

Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino

FARMsAll other Student Groups

FARMsBlack or African-American

FARMsHispanic/Latino

% of MCPS Students Proficient on 2018 PARCC ELA by Student Group, Grades 3-8

MCPS Anne Arundel Frederick Harford

Source: Maryland DOE MCAP (PARCC) 2018

% of Students % Monitoring % AA Non-FARMs % Hi Non-FARMs % Other FARMs % AA FARMs % Hi FARMs

MCPS 44% 10% 10% 5% 12% 20%

What is resource equity?

4

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Resource equity is the

allocation and use of resources

(people, time, and money) to create

student experiences that enable all

children to reach empowering, rigorous

learning outcomes — no matter their

race or income.

Across school levels, MCPS spends more per pupil on its higher need schools, and this extra spend is targeted primarily to elementary schools

5

$8,770

$10,421

$11,565

$9,197 $9,718

$8,800

$9,993

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Non-Focus Focus Title I Non-Focus Impacted Non-Focus/Impacted

Highly Impacted

Spe

ndin

g pe

r P

upil

($s)

Dollar Per Pupil Spending at Schools Excluding Special Education Spending and Self-Contained Student Populations

Average of EL Dollars per Pupil

Average of FARMs Dollars per Pupil

Average of Dollars per Pupil without FARMsand EL Dollars

Elementary School Middle School High School

Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis

School categories defined by FARMs enrollment as follows:

In ES: Non-focus <35%, Focus = 35%-67%, Title I =>67%

In MS: Non-focus <20%, Impacted >20%

In HS: Non-focus/Impacted < 35%, Highly Impacted > 35%

This additional investment results in more staff in higher need schools across all school levels

6

FTE/500 FTE per 500 Students by School Level and School Need

Excluding Special Education Spending and Self-Contained Student Populations

Elementary School FTE/500 Stud:

Non-Focus: 41

Focus: 51 (+10 or 24%)

Title 1 : 58 (+17 or 41%)

Middle School FTE/500 Stud:

Non-Focus: 42

Impacted: 47 (+5 or 12%)

High School FTE/500 Stud:

Non Focus/Impacted: 40

Highly Impacted: 47 (+7 or

18%)

Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis

What do we know so far?

7

White Non-FARMs

7th Grader

Hispanic/Latino

FARMs 7th Grader

Funding & Staffing

$10,940 per pupil funding

76 teachers & staff

$11,640 per pupil funding

85 teachers & staff

% Proficient(based on 2018 7th grade PARCC exam;

score of 4 or 5 = proficient)

76% ELA, 76% Math

21% ELA, 21% Math

Note: Funding = School Attributed $s per pupil for focus school vs non-focus school

Number of teachers and staff is calculated from specifically school-attributed Gen Ed FTE / 900 Gen Ed students (average for MS).

% Proficient based on 2018 PARCC Exam

Today, we will explore student experiences across additional dimensions of equity

8Note: Funding = School Attributed $s per pupil for focus school vs non-focus school Number of teachers and staff is calculated from specifically school-attributed Gen

Ed FTE / 900 Gen Ed students (average for MS). Number of novice teachers is approximate based on average student-experienced percent of time with a novice teacher.

White Non-FARMs

7th Grader

Hispanic/Latino

FARMs 7th Grader

% Proficient

76% ELA,

76% Math

21% ELA,

21% Math

Vision for All

Funding &

Staffing

$10,940 funding

76 teachers &

staff

$11,640 funding

85 teachers &

staff

Sufficient

funding given

need, used well

Teaching

Quality

1 of 7classes with a

novice teacher

2 of 7classes with a

novice teacher

Experience

high quality

and diverse

teachers

Time &

Attention

27 studentsin my core classes

24 studentsin my core classes

Extra time in reading.

No extra time for

math.

Differentiated time

& attention they

need to thrive

Empowering,

Rigorous

Content

39% enrolled in

advanced math

5%enrolled in

advanced math

High expectations;

rich, empowering

materials,

coursework,

classes

Diverse, Inclusive

Schools and

Classrooms

Schools and classes

with diverse mix of

race, socioeconomic

status, and

performance

64% of my peers are ELA-

proficient

30%of my peers are ELA-

proficient

School

Leadership

Quality

Experience high

quality and

diverse leaders

40% likelihood of having

a novice principal

62%likelihood of having

a novice principal

Teaching Quality

Teaching Quality: What does research say?

10

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

“The effects of a costly ten student reduction in

class size are smaller than the benefit of moving

one standard deviation up the teacher quality

distribution.”–Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2005)

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., and Sander, W. (2007). “Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools.” Journal of Labor Economics, Vol.

25, No. 1: 95-135. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and Kain, J. (2005). “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.” Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 2: 417-458.

“Teacher effects are statistically important in

explaining [student] achievement. Teacher

quality is particularly important for lower‐ability

students.”–Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., and Sander, W. (2007)

https://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/aaronson%20et%20al.pdf

http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/teachers-schools-and-academic-achievement

How do we assess teaching quality?

To assess this, we can look at:

oTeaching quality measures

oTeacher assignment to schools and students

oPractices for teacher collaboration and support

oTeacher diversity

11

Our focus today

All students experience a high quality teaching workforce that reflects student diversity

A note on teaching quality measuresAcross the education field, there is no singular, agreed upon way to objectively measure teaching quality. For this study, we

considered the following measures:

12

Measure Used in

this study?

Rationale

Teacher evaluation data No Data was not available for this study.

Novice teachers Yes Research shows that teachers make the greatest gains in effectiveness in their first three years of

teaching, and that generally teachers with less than three years of experience are less effective than

those with more experience. For this reason, we define novice teachers as those with fewer than

three years of experience in MCPS, and use novice teachers as a proxy for developing teachers.

Teacher leaders Yes In MCPS, schools select high performing teachers to take on teacher leadership roles. For this

reason, we use teacher leaders as a proxy for high quality teachers. Positions included as teacher

leaders: Content Specialists, Resource Teachers, Team Leaders, and Staff Development Teachers.

National Board Certified

(NBC) Teachers

Yes MCPS provides stipends to its NBC teachers as part of a strategy to attract and retain high quality

teachers.

Education level (Masters

+60 or other advanced

degree)

Yes Through the salary schedule, MCPS invests more in teachers with higher levels of education as part

of a strategy to attract and retain high quality teachers.

Student survey data No Data was not available for this study

Focus students spend almost 2x more time with novice teachers in middle school than monitoring students

13

14%

11%

20%

15%

20%

16%

21%

15%

23%

17%

25%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Middle School High School

Percent of Classes With Novice Teachers

Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups






Hispanic FARMs students are 2x more

likely to have a novice teacher in middle

school than monitoring students

Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, ERS analysis.

In middle school, the difference in the concentration of novice teachers across schoolsaccounts for most of the difference in student experience. In high schools, within-schoolassignment decisions are a bigger driver of difference in student experience.

14

14%

14%

20% 20%21%

23%25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Non-FARMsAll other Student

Groups

Non-FARMsBlack or African-

American


FARMsAll other Student

Groups

FARMsBlack or African-

American


Student-Experienced Percent of Classes with Novice Teachers – Middle School Drivers

Within School Driver

Across School Driver

Current % of Classes With Novice Teachers for Monitoring Students

11%

11%

15%16%

15%17%

19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Groups


American



Groups


American


Student-Experienced Percent of Classes with Novice Teachers – High School Drivers

Within School Driver

Across School Driver

Current % of Classes With Novice Teachers for Monitoring Students

What factors drive this gap in the student experience?

15

18% novice teachers

in middle schools

Example Student

Experience

25%

Typical Hispanic

FARMs student

14%

Typical White Non-

FARMs student

Within Schools

23%novice teachers

11%novice teachers

Across Schools

Focus School

Non-Focus School


In high schools, focus students are also less likely to be taught by teacher leaders than their peers

16

58%

24%

59%

19%

57%

18%

59%

18%

58%

15%

58%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Middle School High School

Percent of Students Taught by a Teacher Leader in a Core Subject








“Teacher Leader” includes Content Specialists, Resource Teachers, Team Leaders, and Staff Development Teachers.

Focus students are also less likely to be taught by a National Board Certified (NBC) Teacher, in middle and high school

17

23%

42%

16%

36%

16%

34%

16%

36%

13%

31%

11%

33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Middle School(n=85 NBCT)

High School(n=242 NBCT)

Percent of Students Taught by a National Board Certified Teacher in a Core Subject








Note: Counts reflect number of NBC teachers at each school level who are teachers of record for at least one class.

Across and within-school factors drive differences in access to NBC teachers in middle school, while in high school differences are due to within-school factors only

18

23%

16% 16% 16%13% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


Groups


American



Groups


American


Student Likelihood of Having a National Board Certified Teacher – Middle School

Current % of students taught by NBCT Across School Driver Within School Driver

42%

36%34%

36%

31%33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


Groups


American



Groups


American


Student Likelihood of Having a National Board Certified Teacher – High School

Current % of students taught by NBCT Across School Driver Within School Driver


Focus students are slightly less likely to have classes with teachers who have attained advanced degrees

19

14%

18%

21%

12%

16%

19%

12%

16%

18%

12%

16%

20%

11%

15%

18%

11%

14%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Elementary School - Homeroom(n=459 teachers)

Middle School(n=412 teachers)

High School(n=667 teachers)

Percent of Classes with Teachers With Advanced Degrees (MA+60, MEQ+60, DR, EDD, JD, and PhD)








Note: Counts reflect number of teachers at each school level who are teachers of record for at least one class.

MCPS School Spotlight: Wheaton Woods

Wheaton Woods organizes its people and time to provide consistent, integrated, tiered

supports for teachers.

20

Grade and Content

Specific Collaborative

Planning Time

Teachers plan together over

shared content and/or shared

students for 135-180 minutes

per week

Student Progress

Reviews

The principal and AP meet

with each teacher individually

every 4-6 weeks to review

student data

Teacher Coaching

Instructional leaders (reading

specialist, staff development

teachers, and primary

development coach) provide

peer leadership and coaching

for teachers.

Observation and

Feedback Protocols

The principal and AP

informally observe every

teacher for at least 20

minutes every 4-6 weeks

*See the appendix for more information on how school spotlights were selected

Summary – Teaching Quality• Focus group students are less likely to be in classes with the highly effective teachers compared to

monitoring students, as shown across various proxy metrics for teaching quality

• In MS, the difference in student experience is driven mostly by the fact that there are more novice

teachers in higher need middle schools

• In HS, the difference is driven mostly by within school assignment of teachers to certain classes or

students

21

Time and Attention

Time and Attention: What does research say?

23

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Flexible grouping in an important strategy for

providing targeted and individualized instruction

while ensuring students aren’t permanently tracked

into remedial courses; one study found that a five-

year flexible grouping intervention increased the

percentage of students achieving mastery on

literacy assessments in a high-need school

Torgeson, J.K. (2002). “The Prevention of Reading Difficulties,” Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 1: 7-26.

Castle, S., Deniz, C.B., and Tortora, M. (2005). “Flexible Grouping and Student Learning in a High-Needs School,” Education and Urban Society, Vol. 37, No. 2: 139-150.

Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L., and Benson, A. (2009). “The Relation Between the Type and Amount of Instruction and Growth in Children’s Reading Competencies,”

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 47, No. 2: 358-389.

Increased time and smaller group sizes in core

classes can increase student test scores in reading,

particularly for students who are further behind

http://www.learningrx.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The_Prevention_of_Reading_Difficulties_Torgesen_highlighted.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013124504270787

https://psychology.umbc.edu/files/2013/05/sonnenschein-stapleton-benson-2010-aerj.pdf

What do we mean by time and attention?

To assess this, we can look at:

oClass/group sizes that allow for differentiated instruction

oStudents have the time they need to master content

oStudents have access to heterogeneous learning environments

oStudent groupings are flexible and based on data on student progress

oStudent needs are accurately identified and matched to appropriate supports

24

Our focus today

All students get the instructional time and teacher attention they need to thrive

Focus schools have lower core class sizes than non-focus schools, by 3 to 4 students on average

25

22

18 18

2724

2724

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Non-Focus Focus Title I Non-Focus Impacted Non-Focus/Impacted Highly Impacted

Average Core Class Size by School Level and Need

*Elementary school class sizes are based on Homeroom sections. Middle/high school includes core classes but excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and “Academic Acceleration for ELLs”


Elementary School Middle School High School

% of classes

<18 students15% 47% 44% 5% 13% 7% 15%

School categories defined by FARMs enrollment as follows:

In ES: Non-focus <35%, Focus = 35%-67%, Title I =>67%

In MS: Non-focus <20%, Impacted >20%

In HS: Non-focus/Impacted < 35%, Highly Impacted > 35%

Class sizes are lower for high-priority subjects in middle school, but are not differentiated in high school

26

25

22

2624

3028

2724

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Non-Focus MS Focus MS Non-Focus HS Focus HS

Average Class Size by Subject

ELA/Math Non-Core

*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs. Non-core subjects include foreign language, art, music, health/PE, etc.


In middle school, lower performing students have smaller class sizes in ELA and Math by 3-4 students

27

2324

2627 27

25 2526

2728

2123

2425 25

23 24 24 2526

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Average MS ELA/Math Class Size by Student Incoming Performance

ELA

*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs

MathMath ELA


Non-Focus Middle Schools Focus Middle Schools

Class sizes are less differentiated for below performing students in high school

28

26 26 26 27 2725 25

2728

30

23 23 24 25 26 26 26 2728

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Average HS ELA/Math Class Size by Student Incoming Performance

ELA

*Excludes special education classes, ESOL classes, and Academic Acceleration for ELLs

MathMath ELA


Non-Focus High Schools Focus High Schools

In MS, lower performing students receive additional time in ELA; limited opportunity in current schedules for additional time in math

29

29%23%

19% 17% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

1 2 3 4 5

Percent of Scheduled Time by Incoming ELA Performance

ELA Instruction

Incoming PARCC ELA Level

ELA/Math instructional time includes any support & enrichment time that is subject-specific. Does not include after-school, lunch, or

other enrichment time that is not scheduled as a part of the school day.

For simplicity, we did not show support and enrichment breakdown by incoming ELA performance.

Incoming PARCC Math Level

Source: MCPS 17-18 Course Schedule, MCPS SY17-18 Principal Survey, ERS analysis.

15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 5% 4%2% 1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Percent of Scheduled Time by Incoming Math Performance

Math Instruction Support & Enrichment for Students with Disabilities Other Support & Enrichment Time

In addition to classroom teachers, many other staff in the building can support students throughout the day

30Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis. Includes school-reported positions only.

Other Gen Ed Teachers include elective, focus, academic intervention teachers and teacher leaders.

Other Staff includes pupil services, media specialist, and administrative/operations staff.

20

23

18

14 13

12

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

Classroom Teachers Other GeneralEducation Teachers

ESOL and SpecialEducation Teachers

General EducationParaeducators

Special EducationParaeducators

Other Staff

Student-to-Adult Ratio: Elementary Schools

Average Class Size

Student/FTE

MCPS School Spotlight: Matsunaga ESMatsunaga organizes its people and time around two strategic priorities:

• Use data to comprehensively identify and monitor students who need additional support

• Leverage all adult capacity in the building to provide targeted instruction to students

31

Double Dosing in

Classrooms

In the classroom, support

teachers and paraeducators

provide additional core

content instruction to

students who need extra help

Small-Group

Intervention

The reading specialist, AP,

and principal lead pull-out

groups of 4-5 students to

supplement the core

instruction and “double-

dosing” that student receive

in the classroom

*See the appendix for more information on how school spotlights were selected

Summary – Time and Attention

• On average, focus schools have lower core class sizes than non-focus schools, but

there is signficant variation in class sizes across schools

• Across the district, there are inconsistent practices related to schools differentiating

class sizes for priority grades, subjects, and students

• With the exception of MS ELA, schools are not providing more time in core subjects

to lower performing students

32

Summary of Insights

33

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY17-18)

School FundingHigher-need schools have higher per-pupil spending and more staff

per student than lower-need schools

Teaching Quality

Compared to monitoring students, focus students are more likely to

spend time with novice teachers and less likely to spend time with

teacher leaders, national board certified teachers, and teachers with

advanced degrees.

Instructional Time &

Attention

On average, higher-need schools have lower class sizes than lower-

need schools, but there is significant variation across schools. Below-

proficient students receive extra time in MS ELA, but not Math. In HS,

there is virtually no differentiation.

Empowering, Rigorous

Curriculum & Coursework

Are schools differentiating class sizes and time in priority subjects,

grades, and for students who are furthest behind?

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools

Who are students’ peers in their classes? Are lower-performing

students more likely to be in classes with lower-performing peers?

Whole Child ApproachWhat practices do principals report their school uses to support social-

emotional learning?

School Leadership Quality Do all students have access to high quality school leaders?

For next time

34

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY17-18)

School FundingHigher-need schools have higher per-pupil spending and more staff

per student than lower-need schools

Teaching Quality

Compared to monitoring students, focus students are more likely to

spend time with novice teachers and less likely to spend time with

teacher leaders, national board certified teachers, and teachers with

advanced degrees.

Instructional Time &

Attention

On average, higher-need schools have lower class sizes than lower-

need schools, but there is significant variation across schools. Below-

proficient students receive extra time in MS ELA, but not Math. In HS,

there is virtually no differentiation.

Empowering, Rigorous

Curriculum & Coursework

Focus students are less likely to be enrolled in advanced coursework,

even compared to peers with the same incoming performance

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools

Below-proficient students are in classes with a higher concentration of

below-proficient peers

Whole Child Approach Principals report low usage of various tier 1 whole child practices

School Leadership QualityHigher-need schools are more likely to be led by novice principals

than lower-need schools

Appendix

Criteria for selecting schools for school spotlights

36

Criteria

Criteria for

selecting individual

schools

Higher-than-expected academic performance given student need

High African-American FARMs student performance

High Hispanic FARMs student performance

Small achievement gap between AA/Hispanic FARMs students and other students

Criteria for

selecting groups of

schools

Single School Level

Mix of Special Programs

Mix of Student Need

A significant number of students are African-American FARMs or Hispanic FARMs

Criteria 1: Higher-than-expected academic performance given student need

37

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% P

rofic

ient

(E

LA)

% FARMs

% ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES

Wheaton

Woods

Highland

Spark M.

Matsunaga

Source: MCPS Performance Data, ERS Analysis

Criteria 2 and 3: High African-American and Hispanic FARMs student performance

38

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% A

A F

AR

Ms

Pro

ficie

nt (

ELA

)

% FARMs

AA FARMs % ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES

District Median

Highland

Wheaton Woods

Spark M.

Matsunaga

Source: MCPS Performance Data, ERS Analysis

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% H

ispa

nic

FAR

Ms

Pro

ficie

nt (

ELA

)% FARMs

Hispanic FARMs % ELA Proficient on 2018 PARCC in ES

District Median

Wheaton

Woods

Highland

Spark M.

Matsunaga

mcps board meeting › mabe › mcpsmd › board.nsf › files...mcps board meeting share-out:...

Documents