Academic Progress Report

8/3/2019 Academic Progress Report

1/40

Report on Academic Progress

October 11, 2011


2/40

22

MPS Strategic Plan focuses on increasing curricular rigor,

strengthening school leadership and teaching effectiveness, and

intervening in the lowest performing schools

Every Child

College Ready

Raise

Expectations

&

Rigor

Transform

SchoolLeadership

Strengthen

Teaching

Address

Lowest

25% &

Launch

New

Schools

Fix policies and practices that enable racial inequality

Increase accountability

Deepen parent/family relationships

Build external and internal community support

Create sustainable finances

Vision

CoreStrategies

Foundation


3/40

3

In 2010-11, MPS focused in particular on 4 project goals

Every Child

College Ready

Raise

Expect-

ations

&Rigor

Trans-

form

School

Leader-ship

Streng-

then

Teaching

Address

Lowest

25% &

Launch

New

Schools

Fix policies and practices that enable racial

inequality

Increase accountability

Deepen parent/family relationships

Build external and internal community

support

Create sustainable finances

Vision

Core

Strategies

Foundation

Accountability system

Long-range financial plan

and stronger budget process

Focused Instruction

system

2010-11 Board-

Superintendent ProjectGoals

I

n

f

o

r

m

a

ti

o

n

m

g

m

t

.


4/40

In August 2010 the Board approved revised performance goals.

Today we will review 2011 results on these goals.

4

Goals

1. Prepare more students for Kindergarten

2. Increase elementary and middle school students on track and

prepared for success in high school

3. Increase student achievement across all grades and close gap

to state average

4. Reduce achievement gap by increasing achievement of

students of color

5. Prepare more students for college/post-secondary education

6. Increase student engagement

7. Increase student and family satisfaction

8. Increase financial sustainability through restructuring and

revenue generation (appendix)

Every

child

college &

career

ready


5/40

5

Kindergarten readinessMet target: more MPS High 5 students ready for K

1. Prepare more students for kindergarten

68% 69% 72% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS

2015 target: 87%

2011 target: 75%


6/40

3rd grade ReadingClosed gap to state by one point

6

2022

21

58%54%

58%

78% 76% 79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

MPS State

2015 target gap

2011 target gap 18

10

2. Increase elementary and middle school students on track and prepared for success in high school


7/40

7

6th grade ELL on track in ReadingDeclining percentage of ELL Grade 6 Students Proficient or Advanced on MCAII

Reading after 7 years of MPS Enrollment

43% 40% 39%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Gr 6 2009 Gr 6 2010 Gr 6 2011

2015 target: 55%

2011 target: 43%


8/40

3rd grade MathGap to state widened on new MCAIII test

8

60% 61%

49%

79% 81%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

MPS State2015 target gap

2011 target gap 19

11

19 20

21


9/40

9

8th graders on track in MathSurpassed 2015 goal for 8th graders passing Linear

Algebra

31%

82%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011

2015 target: 80%

2011 target: 62%

MPS changed the

middle school

math curriculum

so all 8th graders

would take

Algebra in 2010-

11, to meet new

state law,

prepare students

to meet higher

state standards

in MCAIII, and to

increase

readiness for

high schoolmathematics.

Note only 35%

scored proficient

or above on

2011 MCAIII


10/40

Reading All gradesAfter incremental gains, 4 point improvement in 2011 and

narrowed gap to state by 1 point

48% 49% 51% 52%56%

68% 71%72% 72%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS State

10

2015 target gap

2011 target gap 18

10

20 2221 20

19

3. Increase student achievement across all grades and close gap to state average


11/40

Math All gradesThree years incremental improvement on MCAII;

performance on new MCAIII declines less than states

40% 41%43% 45%

37%

59% 60% 62% 65%56%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS State

11

191919 19

20

112015 target gap

192011 target gap


12/40

Math 11th gradeOver last 2 years, 11 point gain on 11th grade MCAII, closing gap

to state by 3 points

26% 30%

37%

41% 43%49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

MPS State

12

1513

12


13/40

Science All grades tested*MPS and state results flat in 2011

23% 27% 29% 29%

40%46% 48% 48%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%70%

80%

90%

100%

2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS State

13

19

17

92015 target gap

162011 target gap

1919

*Only students in grades 5, 8 and high school (9 or 10) take the MCAII Science exam

4 R d hi b i i hi f d f l


14/40

Reading - Students of Color36 point gap last year; gap to overall state average reduced 2 points

14

4. Reduce achievement gap by increasing achievement of students of color

3634

34% 34%35% 36%

41%

68%

71% 72% 72% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS State

332011 target gap

192015 target gap

37 3734


15/40

Reading Students of Color GroupsLarge increase in % of MPS African American students proficient or

advanced

33%36%

49%

37%

86%

39% 41%

54%

40%

86%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

African American Hispanic Asian American Indian Caucasian

2010 2011

15

+6 pointsChange +5 points +5 points +3 points +0 points


16/40

Reading Home LanguageLarge gain in % of student from Somali-speaking

homes achieving Reading proficiency

30% 32%34%

58%

31% 31%36%

59%

41%36%

39%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Somali Spanish Hmong English

2009 2010 2011

16


17/40

Math - Students of ColorDespite MCAIII decline, gap to state reversing direction

17

3533

26% 27% 28%30%

22%

59% 60%62% 65%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MPS State

332011 target gap

242015 target gap

33 3434


18/40

Special Ed disproportionalityStudents of color remain 42% more likely to receive SpEd services; African

American students have highest risk ratio

18

1.41 1.42

2010 2011

Student of color Special Education

risk ratio

1.52

1.29

0.95

0.70

0.54

African

American

American

Indian

Hispanic Caucasian Asian

Special Ed risk ratio by group 2011

2015

target:

1.23

2011

target:

1.38

National

average 1.5 1.5 .9 .9 .5Source: MPS; IDEA 2007

5 Prepare more students for college/post secondary education


19/40

Predicted college readinessDecline in percentage of 10th Graders Scoring 17 or higher on

ACT/PLAN*

36%40%

43%40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010

19

*A score of 17 or higher on ACT PLAN is correlated with a college-ready score of 21 on the actual ACT; fordistrict accountability purposes, MPS tracks ACT PLAN since nearly all students take it whereas only ~60% ofstudents take the ACT itself.

5. Prepare more students for college/post-secondary education

2015 target: 58%

2011 target: 46%

Ad d t ki


20/40

20

Advanced course takingExceeded two targets in 2011

42% 50%

2010 2011

% AP and IB students earning credit-

eligible score on subject tests*

35% 38%

2010 2011

% students passing at least one AP, IB or CIS

course

34%42% 63%

2009 2010 2011

% of CTE students taking at least 1 advanced

CTE course

2015 target: 55%

2011 target: 39%

2015 target:

57%

2011 target:

45%

2015 target: 62%

2011 target: 46%

*3 on AP; 4 on IB subject tests


21/40

AYP High School Graduation RateGrad rate up 5 points; exceeds target

76%73%

78%

0%

10%20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 (SY 2007-08) 2010 (SY 2008-09) 2011 (SY 2009-10)

21

2015 target: 85%

2011 target: 75%

Note: 2011 AYP rate excludes turnaround schools Edison, Wellstone and Broadway; however the 4-year graduation rate that still

includes them increased by 4.7 points. Note each of the big 7 high schools made its AYP graduation criteria except North (thresholdof 85% graduation rate or 2 percentage point increase from prior year.

Note: AYP graduation rate reporting by the state lags actual school years by approximately one year

d


22/40

Student participationLow attendance is a persistent, critical issue; suspensions flat

22

6. Increase student engagement

59% 59% 59%

2009 2010 2011

% students attending at least 95% of

days*

*Among students who attended at least 95 days (1/2 of year)

10% 9% 9%

2009 2010 2011

% students suspended once or

more

2015 target: 70%

2011 target: 61%

2015

target: 4%

2011 target:

8%

7 Increase student and family satisfaction


23/40

Family satisfactionFamily satisfaction strong, but need to increase survey

participation; enrollment growing faster than projected

23*Approximately 5,500 surveys completed per year

76%

79% 80%

2009 2010 2011

% Families whose school meets or exceeds

expectations

Survey

partici-

pation

rate:

24% 23%23%

33,85533,584 33,420

2009 2010 2011

Enrollment

2011 target: 81%

2015 target: 89%

2011

target:

33,257

7. Increase student and family satisfaction


24/40

School-level performance overview

2410/6/2011


25/40

We Measure Each Schools Performance

Based on 2 Factors

1. Proficiency: an absolute measure of proficiency using the MCA-IItest results for the most recent school year.*

2. Value-Added: a relative measure of proficiency that controls for

factors beyond the schools control (such as poverty). Value-Added

is based on three years of data.Weighting: to assure schools are given credit for growth and are compared on a level

playing field, rankings are combined using 1/3 proficiency and

2/3 Valued-Added. Math and reading scores are equally weighted.

Note: We rate performance and tier schools into 4 quartiles using proficiency and

value-added. We determine the right intervention strategies using the grid,qualitative information from the Cambridge School Quality Reviews and other

factors.*

25

For a primer on value-added, see: Oak tree at our partner VARCs website: http://varc.wceruw.org/tutorials

* Lake Harriet Lower and Lake Nokomis Wenonah ranking based upon value-added calculated using alternate data for the grades they

serve (e.g., beginning and end of kindergarten assessments), not MCA proficiency.**Cityview and Broadway did not have new SQRs in 2011; rating provided by Academic leadership instead


26/40

School Performance and Interventions

School Quality

Reviews

High Priority Schools Middle 50% High Performers

Alphabetically

Exceeds or meets

expectations with

some needs

Major

Interventions:

Internal/external

support

Transformation

TurnaroundRestart

Leadership Change

Program

Replacement or

Closure

Some additional

support

No formal

interventions

Meets expectations

w/some areasrequiring support

Significant

support/

interventionsRequires support in

several areas

Does not meet

expectations

26

Performance (2011 proficiency and 3-year average value-added)

School

QualityReview

2010-

11

MPS S hool Portfolio Performan e


27/40

MPS School Portfolio Performance

High Priority Schools

(25%)

Middle 50% High Performers

(25%) Alphabetically

Exceeds expectations

Meets expectations Kenwood Lake Harriet Lower Lake Harriet Upper

Meets expectations in

most key areas but

requires continued

monitoring and

support

Anishinabe (-)

Pratt (-)

Wellstone

Bryn Mawr (-)

Edison (+)

Northeast (-)

Roosevelt (+)

Sanford

Armatage (-)

Lake Nok.-Wenonah

Loring (-)

Kenny (-)

Pillsbury

Seward

South

Waite Park

Windom

Anthony

Barton

Burroughs

Dowling

Hale

Lake Nokomis-

Keewaydin (+)

Lyndale

Whittier

Southwest

Does not meet

expectations in many

key areas and requires

additional support

Bancroft (-)

Green Central (-)

Hall

Hmong Intl. Academy

Olson

Sheridan

Andersen

Anwatin (-)

Hiawatha

Jenny Lind (-)

Lucy Laney (+)

Marcy

Sullivan (+)

Jefferson

Northrop (-)

Washburn (+)

Emerson (++)

Field (+)

Henry-2011 tbd

Nellie Stone

Johnson(+)

Does not meet

expectations and

requires significant

support

Bethune

Broadway

Cityview

Ramsey

North27

School

QualityReview-

2011

Performance (2011 proficiency and 3-year average value-added)

Note: Friendship Academy and Cyber Village Academy do not have value-added data. Using proficiency only, both would be top 25% (FAFA n=34).

(+) or (-) indicates a school

moved up or down a quartile

since 2010


28/40

MPS Contract Alternative SchoolsSchool Quality Reviews only*

Quality School Reviews

2008-2009

Performance

Exceeds expectations

Meets expectations Loring Nicollet (2011)

MERC (2011)

Meets expectations inmost key areas but

requires continued

monitoring and support

American Indian OIC (2011)Center School (2009)

Heritage (2009)

Plymouth Youth Center (2009)

VOA Phoenix (2011)

Does not meet

expectations in many key

areas and requires

additional support

Urban League High School (2009)

VOA SALT High School (2011)

Does not meet

expectations and requires

significant support

City Inc. (2009)

Urban League Elementary (2009)

Menlo Park (2009)28

*Most contract alternative schools too small for calculating value-added; most also have very small n on state tests.


29/40

Top 25% PerformersMany MPS schools out-performed the state average for

proficiency

94%89%89%87%

85%81%80%

76%75%

63%

57%54%53%52%

42%

% of students proficient in Reading - 2011

29

80% 78%78%

69%64% 63%

58% 57% 56%

42%42% 41% 40%

32%

19%

% of students proficient in Math 2011

Note: some top 25% schools are below the state average for proficiency but

achieved top 25% performance due to their superior valued-added


30/40

High Priority SchoolsMPS lowest performing schools far under-perform

the state average

0%

17%

25%27%28%

30%30%32%32%

37%40%41%42%

66%

75%

% of students proficient in Reading - 2011

30

0% 0%

7% 8%11%

14%14%14%17%

19%19%20%20%

43%

56%

% of students proficient in Math 2011

M j I t ti f Hi h P i it S h l


31/40

Major Interventions for High Priority Schools

31

Provide a new leadership team, staff and school focus and culture Used only occasionally due to disruption across the district

Description

Intensive External

Support

Provide external support Monthly visits to develop action plan directly linked to School Quality

Review outcomes

Direct, one-on-one work with principals and school leadership teams

Skill Building for

Principals Principal professional development on effective classroom observation

and teacher coaching, curriculum maps and data analysis

Launch program, leadership and staffing changes and extended day,supported by Federal School Improvement Grant

Provide new leadership to accelerate improvement and reform efforts

School Closure

Model Replace with MPS-sponsored self-governed, contract or charter school

or internally-designed new school model (e.g., North redesign)

ILT Teams

Restart Model

Turnaround Model

Transformational

Model

I

n

t

e

r

na

l

S

u

p

p

o

rt

R

e

s

t

r

u

c

t

u

r

i

n

g

Provide data-informed academic planning

I t ti d t 2011 d 2012 Hi h P i it S h l


32/40

Interventions underway at 2011 and 2012 High Priority Schools

CloseClose program

Intensive

Internal/

External

Support

Turnaround

(School

Improvement

Grant )

Internal

Restructuring

Under Review

Cityviewclose K-5, phase out

middle school

Hall *support through

NAZ; partnership

with Harvest Prep

Sheridan*enhanced magnet

support

Green *support from Dr.

Virginia Rojas

Sullivan *

Olson *

Anishinabe *Pratt *

Bancroft *

Bethune

Broadway

Edison

HmongInternational

Academy

Lucy Craft

Laney

Wellstone

Ramsey *magnet

strengthening work

Emerson *immersion magnet

work

Roosevelt *new leadership

team for 2011-12

North *Redesign work

supported by

Institute for Student

Achievement

Friendship

AcademyRenewal process in

fall 2011

32

* Academic Reform Specialist and Instructional Leadership Team to provide support


33/40

Supports Needed for All of Our Schools

33

Flexible Staffing Improve how we attract, retain, evaluate and develop strong, cohesive

and stable teacher teams at every school

Teacher Evaluation

Implement rigorous evaluation process, using multiple measures Certify principals using external evaluators to assure fair, effective

observations of classroom learning and teacher practice

Extended Time

Strong School Leadership

Develop school turnaround expertise within MPS principal corpsand/or recruit principals with turnaround experience for High Priorityschools

Strengthen principal professional development and principalcoaching and evaluation

Develop principal/teacher leadership incubator

NEW: Zone-based

instructional leadershipteams

Associate Superintendents and Instructional Team Leaders and

specialists in each zone support individual schools with data analysisand intervention strategies

Increase staff and student hours for instruction and planning Focus district mandates/initiatives at site level and reduce teacher

commitment time to these to increase teacher planning time


34/40

What You Can Do to Support Good Teaching &

Learning

Keep us on track with priorities ofimplementing focused instruction, teacher

evaluation, and a renewed community-wide

focus on student attendance

Reinforce our top priorities in conversation

with fellow decision-makers in the community

Stay focused on the long-range, foundational

work we have begun

Recruit & retain highly qualified teachers in

schools with the highest need34


35/40

Appendix

Data for other scorecard measures

2011 AYP pipeline

Additional subgroup information data

3510/6/2011

8. Increase financial sustainability through restructuring and revenue generation


36/40

Non-academic District Scorecard Metrics

Financial Sustainability District scorecard

metrics

2009-10 Target 2010-11

MPS Bond rating (on G.O. bonds) AA AA AA

Fund balance meets or exceeds Board target

level (minimum level 8%)

Yes Yes Yes

Unqualified audit opinion Yes Yes Yes

Operating and administrative cost per student $1,758 n/a Avail. 10/30

36

2011 AYP status of MPS schools


37/40

(not including contract alternatives)

Watch

Bethune Edison

Hmong International Academy Broadway

Lucy Craft Laney Wellstone

1.1 SchoolChoice

2.1 SES

Pratt

3.1 CorrectiveAction

Marcy Hall Loring

Kenny Nellie Stone Northrop

Seward Waite Park Whittier

4.1 Prep forRestructuring

Bancroft Bryn Mawr Hiawatha

Jenny Lind Lyndale South

Pillsbury Washburn Sanford

5.1Restructuring

Andersen Cityview Green Jefferson

Northeast Roosevelt Sheridan Sullivan

Windom Emerson Anishinabe North

Olson Henry Ramsey Lk Nokomis-Keewaydin

37

60

1

9

9

16

2011 AYP distribution

0 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1

di


38/40

Reading groupsELL students proficiency rate increased as much as non-ELL

students proficiency rate

25%

58%

15%

57%

34%

77%

25%

59%

18%

57%

35%

79%

29%

63%

20%

62%

39%

87%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELL Non-ELL Special Ed Non-Special Ed Free/Reduced

Lunch

Non-F/R Lunch

2009 2010 2011

38


39/40

Math groupsSpecial Education students and non-F/R lunch students decreased less than

state and MPS average on MCAII & new MCAIII math exam

23%

49%

13%

47%

26%

68%

26%

51%

16%

50%

29%

72%

17%

43%

12%

41%

20%

68%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELL Non-ELL Special Ed Non-Special Ed Free/Reduced

Lunch

Non-F/R Lunch

2009 2010 2011

39


40/40

Math Home Language

21%28%

33%

49%

24%29%

37%

51%

18% 20%

29%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Somali Spanish Hmong English

2009 2010 2011

4010/6/2011

Documents

Academic Progress Report