CCSSO 2007

St. Louis Public Schools

Getting Results

Creating the Best Choice in Urban Education

District Demographics (06-07)

CCSSO 2007

SLPS is a District of Choice:SLPS Students in City Magnet Schools

Enrollment = 9,211 students

Voluntary Transfer Into SLPS Enrollment = 391 students

SLPS Students in County SchoolsEnrollment = 8,027 students

St. Louis Charter Schools Enrollment = 5,254 students

MobilityMobility StabilityStability

CCSSO 2007

Elementary Schools—33%

Middle Schools—35%

High Schools—77%

Elementary Schools—85%

Middle Schools—76%

High Schools—85%

* 2006-2007

SLPS and Student Mobility*

Distribution/Elementary

CCSSO 2007

Elementary School Information:Cluster I: Number of Schools – 20

Number of SPT Schools – 4Number of Non-SPT Schools – 16

Cluster II – 20: Number of Schools – 20Number of SPT Schools – 1Number of Non-SPT Schools – 19

Cluster III – 15: Number of Schools – 15Number of SPT Schools – 11Number of Non-SPT Schools - 4

Distribution/Secondary

CCSSO 2007

Middle Schools: Number of Schools - 17 Number of SPT Schools - 11Number of Non-SPT Schools – 6

High Schools: Number of Schools – 12Number of SPT Schools – 9Number of Non-SPT Schools – 3

School Performance Teams Improve Achievement in Low Performing

Schools

CCSSO 2007

3 4 . 7

3 9 . 0

6 7 . 6

6 . 9

1 4 . 6

4 4 . 4

3 . 21 . 0

6 0 . 7

2 3 . 22 0 . 0

7 7 . 6

1 1 . 89 . 3

8 1 . 8

1 3 . 2

7 . 0

9 5 . 4

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

S P T N o t S P T G if t e d S P T N o t S P T G if t e d S P T N o t S P T G if t e d

E le m M id d le H ig h

Mea

n Pe

rcen

tage

of S

tude

nts

Scor

ing

Prof

icie

nt o

r Adv

ance

d on

MAP

G r a d e L e v e l , S P T - T y p e , a n d T e s t Y e a r

M e a n P e r c e n t a g e o f S t u d e n t s P r o f ic ie n t o r A d v a n c e d B y S u b je c t , A Y P G r o u p , a n d G r a d e L e v e l in S Y - 2 0 0 5 a n d S Y - 2 0 0 6

C o m p a r in g t h e S P T S c h o o ls w i t h n o n - S P T S c h o o ls a n d G i f t e d S c h o o ls

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

School Improvement Plan

CCSSO 2007

District–wide data-driven format requiring:

•Item analysis •Root cause analysis •Research – based promising practices•Progress monitoring of strategies and initiatives•Timelines for implementation•Alignment to district and school goals•Monitored and evaluated for effectiveness/tied to principal evaluation 4 times per yr

3 -Pronged Approach for Lighthouse Schools

CCSSO 2007

StudentAchievement

SPT

SQR

SIP

CCSSO 2007

School-Wide Improvement Goals: [TEXT OF GOALS]

School Improvement Objectives for 2007-2008: [TEXT OF OBJECTIVES]

Root Cause(s) 2007-2008: [TEXT OF ROOT CAUSES]

School Improvement Objectives for 2008-2009: [TEXT OF OBJECTIVES]

Tasks/Activity

Specific Actions to Improve Instructional Practices

Intended Audience

Timeframe/ Dates

Person(s) Responsible Evidence of Effectiveness

How will we know our educational practices are having desired outcomes?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Root Cause Analysis

First ask: Why have students not learned the skills and knowledge described in GLEs

Then ask: What gaps or inconsistencies exist in curriculum:

Implementation Monitoring

First ask: Will correcting or eliminating this root cause result in success?

Then ask: Is this root cause important enough for us to focus time and energy in the planning process?

CCSSO 2007

Are any of the possible root causes enabling factors … that is, those aspects

within the school that might be negatively impacting teaching and learning;

or core factors – that is, those that are directly related to teaching and learning?

Are there any other factors related to instruction and curriculum that might affect students’ ability to master the knowledge and content?

CCSSO 2007

Prioritize root causes to target those that if removed would be likely to improve student achievement

Select research-based and/or promising practices to mitigate root causes

Include progress monitoring to assess effectiveness

CCSSO 2007

School Improvement Plan

CCSSO 2007

5 “Domains”—aligned with the district CSIP:

I. Communication Arts

II. Math

III. Attendance

IV. Safe and Orderly Environment

V. Parent/Community Involvement

CCSSO 2007

•Building district capacity to meet Missouri School Improvement Plan (MSIP) standards and accreditation•Ensuring accuracy of core data•Building capacity of schools to improve academic performance by supporting data-driven-decision making models•Implementing continuous school improvement planning and accountability processes using:

Summative MAP assessment data Diagnostic TerraNova assessment dataFormative Benchmark Assessment data every 6 weeksCore data in School Scorecards each quarterAchievement Gap dataRoot Cause AnalysisResearch-based, promising practices to mitigate root causes

Elementary Data Analysis Cluster I

CCSSO 2007

The SPT schools represent 20% of the total number of schools in Cluster I for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 47.8%

100% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 177%

In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 80% of the total number of schools in Cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year--43.75% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 88.3%

31.25% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 48.5%

Elementary Data AnalysisCluster II

CCSSO 2007

The SPT schools represent 5% of the total number of schools in cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year--0% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics and Communication Arts

In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 95% of the total number of schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-- 10.5% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 13.2%

31.6% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 15.1%

Elementary Data AnalysisCluster III

CCSSO 2007

The SPT schools represent 73.3% of the total number of schools in Cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-- 27.3% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 42.7%

36.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.1%

The non-SPT schools represent 26.7% of the total number of schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the non-SPT schools showed increases in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 116.6%

50% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 150.6%

Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in

Mathematics

CCSSO 2007

Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in

Communication Arts

CCSSO 2007

Middle School Data Analysis

CCSSO 2007

The SPT schools represent 64.7% of the total number of middle schools for the 2006-2007 school year--63.6% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 91.4%

63.6% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.4%.

the non-SPT schools represent 35.3% of the total number of middle schools for the 2006-2007 school year--16.7% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 6.1%

0% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts

Middle School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in

Mathematics / Communication Arts

CCSSO 2007

High School Data Analysis

CCSSO 2007

The SPT schools represent 75% of the total number of high schools for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 37.7%

44.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 101.9%

The non-SPT schools represent 25% of the total number of high schools for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 4.0%

33.3% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 86.4%

High School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in Mathematics / Communication Arts

CCSSO 2007

(Internal) School Quality Reviews

CCSSO 2007

Purpose•Promote overall culture of continuous improvement•Systemically gather and share school quality info to inform decision making•Identify research-based long-term strategies

Process•Pre-onsite data and doc review•On-site visitation w/interviews•Draft report…refutations•Final report to inform decision making for school and district

District Interventions & Assistance RE: SIP

CCSSO 2007

2005-2006 School Performance Teams

2006-2007 School Performance Teams and data-driven SIP

2007-2008 School Performance Teams in Cluster 3 schools –more intense application of model

All schools: data-driven SIP with PD embedded and aligned with item/data analysis,implementation tied to principal evaluations (formal process 4 X yr)

CCSSO 2007

September: Administrators will review and revise SIP

October: Administrator will schedule formal meeting with SIP team, supervisor , OAAI and PD staff

November: Supervisor will discuss SIP adjustments resulting from October meeting and data review

February: Administrator will schedule formal SIP review with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress

March: Administrator will continue data review and development of next year’s SIP

April: Complete review of current SIP and draft of next year’s SIP, formal review with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress

May: Schedule final formal SIP review with with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress