Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategies for Improving Student Performance in a Time of
Declining Resources
Sue Gendron, Commissioner of EducationMaine Department of Education
Stefan Kohler, Chief Executive OfficerInternational Center for Leadership in Education
Saturday, January 24, 2009
$0.8 trillion - Medicare Part D
Fiscal Debt
$1.5 trillion - Future interest on new debt
$1.6 trillion - Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
$0.5 trillion - Debt from other bailouts
$0.75 trillion - Projected deficit
for 2009
$4.9 trillion -Increase in
national debt
$0.1 trillion - Veterans’ entitlements
$0.2 trillion - Rebuilding defense
How It Effects Us
Cost of a family health insurance premium
$12,680
$6,772
+ 87%
Uninsured People
45.7
38.4 Million
+ 19%
2000 2009
How It Effects Us
2000 2009
7.6
Families in poverty
6.4 Million
+ 19%
Real median household income$50,557
$50,233
-1%
Where the Money Went
2000 2009
$1,642 Billion
Corporate profits$980 Billion
+ 68%
Top 1% of Americans
‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06
20.8%17.5%
16.1% 16.8%19%
21.2% 22.1%
‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06
13% 13.8% 14.2% 14% 13.4% 12.8% 12.5%
Bottom 50%
Where the Money Went
Manufacturing Process
Efficient and Effective FrameworkHigh Student PerformanceHigh Student Performance
High High CostCost
Low Low CostCost
Low Student PerformanceLow Student Performance
CCDD
AA BB
High CostHigh CostHigh PerformanceHigh Performance
Low CostLow CostHigh PerformanceHigh Performance
Low CostLow CostLow PerformanceLow Performance
High CostHigh CostLow PerformanceLow Performance
•11,000 students•28% minority•30% free/reduced lunch•10% with disabilitiesCEO: Bob Sommers
Low Student PerformanceLow Student Performance
High Student PerformanceHigh Student Performance
Low Low CostCost
High High CostCost
CC DD
AA BB
Initiatives
Customer Focus: Student Performance
Changed Policy: Budget Allocation
Innovation: Evaluation Process
Initiatives• Customer Focus: Student Performance• Changed Policy: Budget Allocation• Innovation: Evaluation Process
Butler Tech Decision Framework ©
Will it improve Staff satisfaction?
Is it ethical?
Decisions:
What to do.
How to deploy it.
Will
it im
prov
e
cus
tom
er s
atis
fact
ion?
Will it im
prove
stakeholder satisfaction?
Will
it im
prov
e
org
aniz
atio
n or
stu
dent
perf
orm
ance
?
Can w
e afford it?
Stage Gate Process
Initiatives• Customer Focus: Student Performance
• Changed Policy: Budget Allocation• Innovation: Evaluation Process
The Board changed the financial policy to ensure budgets included coaching,
mentoring and tools for teachers
Initiatives
Max. 70% of budget = teacher salaries/benefits
30% had to be allocated to:•Professional Development•Student Supplies•Technology• Infrastructure
Butler Tech’s history and their research showed that giving a teacher anything less than 30% allocation would mean they would fail.
Empowering teachers with: •“clarity of expected results”•significant teacher “coaching”
Initiatives• Customer Focus: Student Performance• Changed Policy: Budget Allocation
• Innovation: Evaluation Process
•Consistent classroom
observations
•State-of-the-art
data collection &
reporting
Results
Student PerformanceStudent Performance
• From 41st out of 47 CTE schools to #1
• Ohio’s lowest cost/student• College entrance up 45%• 98% graduation rate• 95% retention rate (9th to
10th grade)• 96% attendance rate
Low Student PerformanceLow Student Performance
High Student PerformanceHigh Student Performance
Low Low CostCost
High High CostCost
CC DD
AA BB
EE Framework: Brockton HS
Low Student PerformanceLow Student Performance
High Student PerformanceHigh Student Performance
Low Low CostCost
High High CostCost
CC DD
AA BB
Brockton HS Special Ed Case Study
The Situation
•ELA Failure Rate - 78%
•Math Failure Rate - 98%
•Special Ed Students taught in separate classrooms
•Teachers not certified in subject area
•Lower student expectations
The Challenge
• Based on “substantially separate” model
• Fiscal limitations
• Entrenched management philosophy
• Culture of low expectations
• Culture of “Empires”
The Action PlanA. School-wide literacy initiative
B. Collection/analysis of student data
C. Attendance at MSC
D. Consulting from ICLE
E. Teachers trained in co-teaching
F. Special Ed students included in classrooms
G. IEPs revised to include higher expectations
H. Structured portfolios for students with IEPs
I. Extended-day mentoring program
Sustainability
• Data constantly reviewed
• Student work included in portfolios
• Portfolios reviewed by administration
• Continued professional development on the challenges of co-teaching
Results
• ELA failure rate:
78% to 19%
• Math failure rate: 98% to 47%
• NO additional costsLow Student PerformanceLow Student Performance
High Student PerformanceHigh Student Performance
Low Low CostCost
High High CostCost
CC DD
AA BB
Strategies for Improving Student Performance in a Time of Declining Resources
Sue Gendron
Commissioner of EducationMaine Department of Education
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Funding Student Learning
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Economic Stimulus Package
Using Student Learning as the Basis for Making Funding Decisions
State
District
School
Clear Articulation of Vision, Mission and Goals
• Clear concise
• Measurable ( 5 - 6 )
• Constructed on data analysis
• Systemic agreement (K-12)
• Guide all budget decisions
Identification of Budget Priorities
Comprehensive Data Analysis
- Who is doing well? - What needs are not being met? - Are all students being challenged? - What practices are producing improved
student performance? - Recommendations: what to stop, what to
implement
Mapping the District Priorities
K-12 Team Analysis
– Identification of system needs– Identified strengths– Prioritization of needs
• Students• Staff• Policy implications
– Costs identified
Identification of Financial Resources
Local State
Federal
Grants
Budget Recommendations
• Transparent
• Focused and quantifiable
• Public perception/good value
• New decision making process for school board
Continuous Monitoring & Benchmarking of Performance
Indicators and Expenditures
- Clear goal(s)
- Action strategies defined• Measurable indicators• Defined costs• Timeline detailed• Person responsible• Ability to monitor daily, • Adjusted accordingly
www.LeaderEd.com
www.LeaderEd.com
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
