title i allocations and expenditures - st. louis …€¦ · web view2015 2016 245.5 252.6 district...

Title I

Title I Evaluation2015 – 2016

OFFICE OF ACCOUNTABILITY RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Kelvin R. Adams, Ph.D.Superintendent of Schools

SAB MEMBERSRick Sullivan

Darnetta ClinkscaleRichard K. Gaines

C.L.Shannon, Ph.D.Director, Research and Evaluation

Rebecca Bowen, MAResearch Analyst

State & Federal Programs

Executive Summary

This report measures the compliance and overall effectiveness of the Saint Louis Pubic School District’s programs and services funded by Title I federal grants during the 2015 – 2016 school year. Saint Louis Public Schools received $25,139,811 in federal funds through Title I. These funds come from Title I.a and Title I.d and are intended to support disadvantaged students’ access to a high-quality education, as well as supporting programs that work with the education and transition of delinquent youth.

This evaluation was done by collecting self-evaluations from various schools, departments, and services that receive Title I funding, as well a collection of data from the district’s Student Information System and the results for the state’s assessment program.

There are positive results noted in this report. This includes a significant improvement in schools & programs staying within budget (13 in the current year compared to 25 in the prior year). While enrollment is down in Title I schools, strong gains are seen in attendance. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education sets a target of 90% of students in attendance 90% of the time. This proportional attendance target was achieved by 55.4% of the schools, up from 30.8% the prior year.

While positives results can be seen, areas of concern are also evident. The high school drop-out rate increased in six schools and the 4-year graduation rate for the four lowest performing high schools is an average of only 50.5%. Only 21.5% of Title I schools met the goal of having classes taught by 100% highly qualified teachers and 30 schools saw even fewer classes taught by highly qualified teachers this year. The district did not fill the position of Coordinator of Academic Instructional Coaches (AICs) during the 2015-16 school year and the responsibility of supporting those AICs fell to the school’s principal and/ or network superintendent.

Academically, the district’s Title I students are still far below non-Title I students in the district, as well as the State average. Title I students did show slight improvements, but the achievement gap as compared to non-Title I students grew wider; that gap when compared to the State average narrowed.

This report shows that while gains and improvements can be seen with the use of Title I funds in the district, there is still a need for significant improvements, especially academically. Recommendations for options to consider to make those improvements can be found at the end of the report.

Office of Research & Evaluation | Title I Report 0

Kelvin R. Adams, Ph.D.Superintendent of Schools

SAB MEMBERSRick Sullivan

Darnetta ClinkscaleRichard K. Gaines

C.L.Shannon, Ph.D.Director, Research and Evaluation

Rebecca Bowen, MAResearch Analyst

State & Federal Programs

Contents

Overview.....................................................................................................................................................2

Title I Allocations and Expenditures.........................................................................................................3

Enrollment, Attendance Rates, Drop-Out Rates, and Graduation Rates..................................................7

Academic Achievement.........................................................................................................................10

Professional Development........................................................................................................................14

Academic Instructional Coaches............................................................................................................15

Teacher Certification.............................................................................................................................26

Instructional Support & Rigor....................................................................................................................29

Excellent Classroom Tool Results...........................................................................................................30

Early Childhood Education........................................................................................................................34

Family & Community Involvement............................................................................................................34

Student Intervention.................................................................................................................................36

Impact on Discipline Related Issues.......................................................................................................37

Students-in-Transition Office.................................................................................................................41

Office of Health Services........................................................................................................................43

Social Work Services..............................................................................................................................43

Neglected and Delinquent.........................................................................................................................43

Recommendations....................................................................................................................................46

Appendix...................................................................................................................................................48

Professional Development.....................................................................................................................49

Academic Instructional Coaches............................................................................................................51

Homeless and Foster Care Services (Students-In-Transition).................................................................53

Family & Community Involvement.........................................................................................................55

Neglected & Delinquent Services...........................................................................................................58

Excellent Classroom Elements & Rubric.................................................................................................60


OverviewThe purpose of this report is to measure the compliance and overall effectiveness of the

Saint Louis Pubic School District’s programs and services funded by Title I federal grants during the 2015 – 2016 school year. Saint Louis Public Schools receive federal funds through Title I Part A and Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The legislative purpose of Title I.A is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and assessments. This can be accomplished by meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children, closing the achievement gap between high- and low- performing children, high standards for all students, enriched and accelerated instruction, decentralized decision making, improved accountability, high-quality professional development, coordination and integration of services, expanded family involvement, extended learning time, and early intervention. The legislative purpose of Title I.D is to support LEA programs that collaborate with locally operated delinquent correctional facilities in three ways: (1) to carry out high-quality educational programs to prepare children and youth for secondary school completion, training, and employment or further education, (2) to provide activities to facilitate the transition of children and youth from the correctional program to further education or employment, and (3) to operate programs in local schools for children and youth returning from correctional facilities and programs which may serve other at-risk students.1

The six focus areas that will be investigated in this report are:1. Professional Development

2. Instructional Support and Rigor

3. Early Childhood Education

4. Family and Community Involvement

5. Student Intervention

6. Neglected and Delinquent Programs

Information and data for each area of the report was gathered from various departments in the District’s Central Office, as well as self-evaluations from principals and managers.

This section, as an overview of the Title I programs’ efforts and results, reviews the following:

1 Source: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/qs-fc-admin-manual-Jan-2015.pdf


• Title I budget allocations and expenditures

• Enrollment, attendance rates, graduation rates, and drop-out rates in Title I schools

• MAP results for students identified by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MO DESE) as Title I students

Title I Allocations and ExpendituresTables 1 through 5 display the allocations and expenditures of the Title I budget over the

course of 2015-2016 school year in all SLPS Title I schools, as well as the central office.2 A total of $25,139,811 Title I funds was allocated to the district and $22,699,129.25 was spent, leaving a balance of more than $2.4 million that will be rolled into the Title I budget for the 2016-17 school year. All middle and high schools stayed within budget, but 11 elementary schools went over their allocated budget (noted in red on the next page). At the district level, Early Childhood and Students-in-Transition also went over their allocated budgets. This total of 13 schools or departments over budget is a great improvement from the prior year when 24 schools and 1 department went over their allocated budgets.

Title I programs, which include after school programs, classroom enhancements, and supplies that go to all students in a math or communication arts classrooms, accounted for a majority of the total expenditures in the district at 52.7%. The second largest expense for the district was Early Childhood and accounted for 29.9% of Title I expenditures. Parent Involvement was just under 5%, Students-In-Transition was slightly more than 2%, and Neglected & Delinquent was 1% of monies spent.

Table 1: Title I Budget Allocations and Expenditures for District Level Programs

2 This data was reported by the Grants Management Office.


Table 2: Title I Budget Allocations and Expenditures for Elementary Schools


Table 3: Title I Budget Allocations and Expenditures for Middle Schools

Table 4: Title I Budget Allocations and Expenditures for Secondary Schools

Table 5: Title I Budgets and Expenditures for District


The expenditures shown in Table 5 show the data in a different way from the four previous tables. Supplemental Instruction included activities in the buildings, Transportation is the funding of after school transportation and the transportation piece of the Students-In-Transition department, Professional Development is the Academic Instructional Coaches (funded through the building allocation), Non-Instructional Support (Homeless Set-a-side, as well as the money funded for Avid), and Parental Involvement includes the FCSs (funded by building allocation and a central office budget) for those buildings that cannot afford an FCS, in addition the central office FCS budget and the Parental Involvement budget allocated the buildings.3 Site level budgets may include amounts from multiple sources shown in Table 5.

One challenge with budgets is that as it became obvious during the collection of self-evaluations that some principals are not aware of the Title I money that is budgeted for their schools or how that money is spent. For the 11 elementary schools that went over budget, only one school was aware that expenditures exceeded their allocation. The Title I Self-Evaluation form requests each school to include their allocation and expenditures but most forms did not have the correct information.

There were two different instances of principals emailing this department to say their Title I money was taken from them, but the Director of the Grants Management Office was able to communicate to principals that their AIC salary was likely paid for through their Title I funds. The Director was also able to provide direction to principals on how they could use SAP to find their allocation and expenditures for Title I funds. Given the number of errors seen in the forms submitted by schools over budget, it seems that it would be useful to review with staff what their Title I budgets are and what expenses are paid for through these funds.

Table 6 below shows the budgets and expenditures for the eleven elementary schools that overspent their Title I allocation, as well as what was reported (usually by the principal) on the self-evaluation forms. Four schools did not submit their self-evaluation, six schools submitted figures to show they were under budget, and one school correctly identified being over budget, although the numbers were slightly off.

3 Explanations provided by the Director of Grants Management on 11/1/2016.


Table 6: Reported Budgets & Expenditures from Title I Schools over Budget

Enrollment, Attendance Rates, Drop-Out Rates, and Graduation Rates Table 7 shows the enrollment and attendance rates of Title I funded elementary schools.

Enrollment in the elementary schools decreased by more than 1,000 students. Out of the 45 Title I elementary schools, 30 schools (66.7%) met the proportional attendance goal of 90% of the students in attendance 90% of the time. During the previous school year only 15 out 44 elementary Title I schools (34.1%) met this goal. Overall, 38 out of 45 elementary schools (84.4%) saw improvements in their proportional attendance rates. The average proportional attendance rate for elementary schools was 90.4% and was only 84.9% during the prior year.

Table 7: Enrollment and Attendance Rates for Elementary Title I Schools4

School

2015 Enrollm

ent

2015 Pre-K Enrollm

ent

2016 Enrollm

ent

2016 Pre-K Enrollm

ent

2015 Proportional Att

endance


endance

Adams Elementary 278 33 271 34 82.6% 93.5%AESM Elementary 328 20 261 29 84.6% 87.1%Ames VPA Elementary 345 34 363 39 92.3% 96.2%Ashland Elementary 329 39 292 42 84.2% 84.7%Bryan Hill Elementary 184 35 154 33 92.2% 94.1%

4 Data pulled from School Reports on dese.mo.gov on 10/13/16. 2016 not yet finalized and subject to change.


Buder Elementary 325 70 342 73 92.1% 91.9%Clay Elementary 164 38 116 35 77.3% 92.0%Columbia Elementary 182 34 125 26 85.2% 94.2%Cote Brilliante Elementary 235 44 185 33 79.7% 91.7%Dewey IS Elementary 371 56 381 57 93.9% 94.8%Dunbar Elementary 194 48 150 49 82.5% 86.4%Earl Nance Sr. Elementary 335 26 293 25 76.4% 86.8%Farragut Elementary 164 18 144 21 91.1% 88.5%Ford Elementary 297 39 233 34 87.1% 94.8%Froebel Elementary 316 29 254 36 84.5% 94.4%Gateway Elementary 511 35 522 39 92.2% 92.5%Gateway Michael Elementary 56 7 55 6 54.8% 59.0%Hamilton Elementary 350 49 283 49 85.9% 94.9%Henry Elementary 182 63 180 60 83.1% 90.4%Herzog Elementary 401 36 298 37 79.5% 87.2%Hickey Elementary 196 35 157 28 83.5% 87.1%Hodgen Elementary 269 35 223 40 78.9% 90.5%Humboldt Academy 315 -- 262 -- 84.5% 92.6%Jefferson Elementary 203 53 187 63 84.2% 81.7%Laclede Elementary 280 43 206 31 78.5% 88.0%Lexington Elementary 339 50 328 51 91.4% 95.6%Lyon ABI Elementary 387 22 380 20 80.7% 90.9%Mann Elementary 310 42 242 50 91.6% 97.0%Mason Elementary 414 84 402 77 90.8% 94.0%Meramec Elementary 232 24 197 34 93.2% 91.2%Monroe Elementary 311 52 292 61 73.4% 84.2%Mullanphy Elementary 379 62 377 55 92.7% 95.2%Nahed Chapman N.A. Acad. -- -- 196 -- -- 95.6%Oak Hill Elementary 314 30 268 31 87.6% 86.0%Pamoja Preparatory Academy 382 48 352 47 87.2% 89.9%Peabody Elementary 226 68 191 50 73.5% 83.3%Shaw Elementary 384 19 377 20 92.2% 95.3%Shenandoah Elementary 183 39 167 52 80.5% 92.5%Sigel Elementary 259 27 236 28 88.9% 93.8%Stix Early Childhood Center 330 184 327 177 90.5% 92.3%Walbridge Elementary 158 31 194 32 79.7% 83.4%Washington Montessori 307 96 308 97 88.0% 96.4%Wilkinson Early Childhood Center 177 78 161 80 92.1% 96.4%Woerner Elementary 382 19 384 20 90.9% 90.4%Woodward Elementary 358 30 289 30 80.3% 90.5%

Table 8 shows the enrollment and attendance rates of Title I funded middle schools. The enrollment in these schools decreased by 183 students. Attendance in the middle schools was


not as strong in the elementary school as only 3 out of the 9 schools (33.3%) met the proportional attendance goal of 90% of the students in attendance 90% of the time; the prior year only 2 schools met this goal (22.2%). However, 5 out of the 7 schools that did not meet the proportional attendance goal in the 2014-15 school year did show improvement in the 2015-16 school year. The average attendance rate for middle schools also shows improvement, changing from 83.3% in the prior year to 85.0%.

Table 8: Enrollment and Attendance Rates for Title I Middle Schools

School

2015 Enrollm

ent

2016 Enrollm

ent

2015 Proportiona

l Att

endance

2016 Proportiona

l Att

endance

AESM Middle 282 216 89.4% 90.7%Busch Middle School 349 346 94.0% 92.7%Carr Lane Middle School 557 563 81.0% 88.8%Compton Drew ILC Middle School 496 481 85.2% 86.2%Fanning Middle School 375 356 81.8% 81.2%Gateway Middle School 559 564 91.2% 91.2%Langston Middle School 282 228 74.2% 68.5%Long Middle School 239 210 69.3% 78.2%Yeatman-Liddell Middle School 358 350 83.3% 87.7%

Table 9 shows the enrollment, attendance rates, drop-out rates and the 4-year graduation rates of Title I funded high schools. There were 200 fewer students enrolled in the 2015-16 school year. Only 3 out of the 11 high schools (27.3%) had a proportional attendance rate that met the goal. While this continues to be a concern for the district, 6 out of 11 (54.5%) schools improved their proportional attendance rates from the prior year.

Overall, the dropout rate at Title I high schools decreased from 16.15% to 14.95%. That improvement is the results of three high schools decreasing their dropout rates from the prior year. Roosevelt continues to have the highest dropout rate at 41.0% but that high rate is still a significant improvement from 62.6% during the 2014-15 school year. Six Title I high schools saw increases in their dropout rates.

Seven high schools increased their 4-year graduation rates and the overall graduation rate went from 74.3% to 75.5%. 3 out of 11 schools (27.2%) have rates above 90% and 7 out of 11 schools (63.6%) have rates above 80%. The bottom four schools are CAJT at Nottingham, Roosevelt, Sumner, and Vashon; their combined average graduation rate is 50.5%. While this rate is not yet approaching the 2020 target of 92%-100% set by DESE, it does show improvement from the prior year’s rate of 45.7% for these same four schools.


Table 9: Enrollment, Attendance Rates, Drop-Out Rates, and Graduation Rates in Title I High Schools

School

2015 Enrollment

2016 Enrollment


endance Rate


endance Rate

2015 Dropout Rate

2016 Dropout Rate

2015 Graduation Rate

2016 Graduation Rate

Carnahan School of the Future 414 383 88.2% 92.3% 2.0% 4.7% 90.4% 94.5%

Central VPA High School 396 408 94.3% 91.2% 2.9% 4.2% 93.4% 94.6%

Cleveland NJROTC High School 290 269 95.0% 92.2% 6.5% 10.4% 91.7% 82.8%

Clyde C Miller Career Academy 685 666 85.3% 86.6% 3.4% 4.7% 89.5% 85.4%

CAJT at Nottingham 136 143 79.5% 86.8% 4.7% 9.0% 16.7% 15.6%

Gateway High School 1,121 1,148 86.8% 82.1% 2.6% 5.3% 87.4% 89.1%

Roosevelt High School 625 518 63.2% 72.0% 62.6% 41.0% 56.1% 59.7%

Soldan IS High School 554 593 89.1% 88.8% 1.1% 3.1% 92.7% 98.6%

Sumner High School 440 356 31.2% 74.0% 44.5% 32.6% 55.4% 62.7%

Transportation & Law High School 364 370 89.0% 87.0% 3.1% 13.2% 89.7% 83.1%

Vashon High School 645 616 50.3% 64.5% 44.3% 36.2% 54.6% 64.1%

Overall, Title I schools showed strong gains in attendance. During the 2014-15 school year, only 30.8% of all Title I schools reached the target of a 90% proportional attendance rate set by Missouri’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). The 2015-16 school year had 55.4% of Title I schools reach the target. All Title I schools together had an average attendance rate of 88.5%, an improvement from the prior year’s 83.4%. This average proportional attendance rate is getting closer to DESE’s target of 90%.

Academic AchievementThe final and ultimately most important measurement on the success of Title I in the

Saint Louis Public School District is assessment results. Table 10 shows the results of students in the Title I schools identified by DESE in the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) tests provided to the district, comparing their MAP Performance Index (MPI) scores with students in non-Title I schools, as well as the State as a whole. Comparisons of year-to-year assessments require an analysis of MPI (MAP Performance Index) and MAP performance levels due to changes in the assessment and Missouri standards.


Table 10: 2016 MAP Test Results for Title I, Non-Title I and State Students

N MPI Below Basic % Basic % Proficient

%Advanced

%

Communication Arts

District Title I 10,484 252.6 41.3% 27.2% 27.8% 3.7%

District Non-Title I 930 427.1 3.9% 8.8% 39.8% 47.5%

State 490,267 349.3 16.2% 20.9% 44.3% 18.7%

Math

District Title I 10,229 236.3 43.8% 35.8% 17.0% 3.5%


State 480,538 326.7 19.8% 31.6% 30.9% 17.7%

Science

District Title I 4,106 247.7 37.3% 43.0% 16.9% 2.8%


State 200,078 341.2 12.3% 35.5% 37.0% 14.9%

Social Studies

District Title I 1,042 293.4 21.8% 44.5% 30.4% 3.3%


State 58,743 366.9 9.8% 26.9% 40.0% 23.3%

As Table 10 shows, students in Title I schools are behind their non-Title I peers in all content areas. The largest gap in MPI is in Communication Arts, where Title I students earned 174.5 points less than non-Title I students. Title I students are 159.5 points lower in Math, 125.4 points lower in Science, and 24.5 points lower in Social Studies.

The percentage of students who stay in the lowest two levels of achievement (Below Basic and Basic) is another indicator. While only 12.7% of non-Title students scored either Below Basic or Basic in Communication Arts, 68.5% of Title I students did so. The percentages of non-Title students who tested as Below Basic or Basic were 25.4% in Math and 33.0% in Science, whereas for Title I students the percentages are around 80% in both content areas. Twenty-five percent more Title I students fell into the lowest two levels than non-Title students in Social Studies.


Compared to the State as a whole, the district’s Title I students also had lower MPIs in all content areas. In Communication Arts, Math and Science, Title I students scored respectively 96.2, 90.4 and 93.5 points lower than the State average, while non-Title I students did better than the State average. As for Social Studies, both Title and non-Title students preformed below the state average, yet the difference for Title I students is larger than for non-Title students.

The percentage of the district’s Title I students with achievement levels of Below Basic and Basic is around 30% higher than the State overall in each content area; for non-Title students, the percentages are much lower than the ones of the State, except for Social Studies, which is 4.3% higher.

As a comparison, Table 11 presents the 2015 MAP test results for Communication Arts and Math. The gap between the district’s Title I and non-Title I students widened in both content areas, but the gap comparing Title I students to the State average showed improvement.

Table 11: MPI Gap between Title I /Non-Title I /State Students on 2015 and 2016 MAP Tests

2015 District Title I MPI

2015 District Non-Title I

MPI

2015 StateMPI

2015 Title I/Non-Title I

Gap

2016 Title I/Non-Title I

Gap

2015 Title I/State Gap

2016 Title I/State Gap

Communication Arts

245.5 408.8 348.7 163.3 174.5 103.2 96.7

Math

210.4 359.1 311.2 148.7 159.5 100.8 90.4

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the changes in MPI for Communication Arts and Math for both the district’s Title I and non-Title I students, as well as the State average. In Communication Arts, Title I students improved by 7.1 points, non-Title I students improved by 18.3 points, and the average for students in the State only improved by 0.6 points. In Math, Title I students improved by 25.9 points, non-Title I students improved by 18.3 points, and the average for students in the State was 36.7 points higher. The district’s non-Title I students showed more improvement in Communication Arts than their Title I peers, but Title I students improved more in Math than non-Title I students.


Figure 1: Title I, Non- Title I and State MPI Scores for 2015 and 2016 MAP Tests on Communication Arts

2015 2016200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0M

PI

Figure 2: Title I, Non- Title I and State MPI Scores for 2015 and 2016 MAP Tests on Math

2015 2016200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

MP

I


As Table 12 shows, although the district’s Title I schools overall still fall well below the

State average, improvements were seen in Communication Arts.

Table 12 Percentages of District’s Title I and Non-Title I Schools At/Above State Average in 2015 and 2016

Percentage of Title Schools with MPI Higher than State Average

Percentage of Non-Title Schools with MPI Higher than State Average

2015 2016 2015 2016

Communication Arts 3.2% 9.5% 83.3% 83.3%

Math 7.9% 6.3% 85.7% 83.3%

Science 7.9% 7.9% 66.7% 83.3%

Social Studies 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 75.0%

Title I students showed some slight gains but remain far below non-Title I students in the district.

Professional DevelopmentAccording to the Self-Evaluation Report from the Director of Curriculum &

Development, the goal of the Department of Professional Development is to train and support Academic Instructional Coaches (AICs) “on implementing district curriculum, effective coaching cycles, providing effective feedback, and other identified areas of professional growth as a coach. AICs facilitate PD for district-wide PD days.”

The strategies identified to undertake these goals and objectives included AICs receiving “support from their Network Superintendent and Principal” and AICs “engaged in peer collaboration groups.”

At the school level AICs assigned to nearly every school. These individuals operate as part of the school leadership team; they engaged in the same training and development as school leaders.

During the 2015-16 school year, there was not a designated Coordinator to oversee the development of AICs as in previous years. This lack of a coordinator was noted as a weakness of the professional development within the district and its reinstatement could “ensure strong support and development for AICs throughout the school year.”


Academic Instructional CoachesThe AIC provides job-embedded professional development to teachers. They assist

teachers in improving communication arts, math, and science instruction by offering them with specific instructional strategies for student intervention or enrichment. The AIC supports teachers by modeling effective instruction, helping teachers organize and select research-based learning activities that are aligned with the district’s curriculum, offering assistance to teachers in implementing methods to engage students in the classroom, and observe teachers’ instruction and provide feedback in a non-evaluative manner. The AIC also facilitates teacher collaboration, delivers formal professional development to school staff, and guides teams and teachers in analyzing data. 5

According to the Self-Evaluation Report from the Director of Curriculum and Development, the AICs submit weekly logs that reflect the types of activities that they are engaged with each day as a means of documenting their work. Principals also complete summative evaluations on each AIC annually.

Using Killion and Harrison’s theory6, the Academic Office previously has identified ten (10) roles for AICs to use to contribute to their schools' success: Resource Provider, Instructional Specialist, Curriculum Specialist, Classroom Supporter, Learning Facilitator, Mentor, School Leader, Data Coach, Catalyst for Change, and Learner. To measure how successful AICs are in performing these roles, the coaching logs that are submitted by AICs provides data for the work being completed at each school site. AICs logged 16,540 classroom walkthroughs and 2,998 coaching cycles this school year. The break-down results of the weekly logs are shown below, reflecting the ways AICs did their work.

5 Source: http://www.slps.org/cms/lib03/MO01001157/Centricity/Domain/97/Academic%20Instructional%20Coach%20-%20All%20Levels.pdf6 J. Killion and C. Harrison. Taking the Lead: New Roles for Teachers and School-Based Coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 2006.


http://www.slps.org/cms/lib03/MO01001157/Centricity/Domain/97/Academic%2520Instructional%2520Coach%2520-%2520All%2520Levels.pdf

http://www.slps.org/cms/lib03/MO01001157/Centricity/Domain/97/Academic%2520Instructional%2520Coach%2520-%2520All%2520Levels.pdf

Figure 3: Responses to Q6: In what ways did you serve as a Resource Provider this week in your school? Check all that apply.

Conduct research.

Shared research, best practices, and emerging trends with staff.

Recommended resources to teacher(s).

Offered resources requested by teacher(s).

I did not work in this role this week.

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

13%

53%

75%

80%

6%

Data show that the largest portion of AICs served as Resources Providers to expand teachers' use of a variety of resources to improve instruction by offering resources requested by teacher(s) and recommending resources to teacher(s). A considerable percent shared research, best practices, and emerging trends with staff (see Figure 3).

Helping teachers select and implement the most appropriate strategies to meet the learning needs of all students, helping with lesson planning including review of lesson plans and providing feedback, along with supporting teachers through modeling, teaching, affirming, observing, and providing constructive feedback are the three most popular ways for AICs to serve as Instructional Specialists (see Figure 4 on the next page).


Figure 4: Responses to Q7: In what ways did you serve as an Instructional Specialist this week in your school? Check all that apply.

Roughly 60% of AICs in schools served as Curriculum Specialists to ensure implementation of adopted curriculum by working with teachers to increase content knowledge. Interestingly, approximately 12% of all the AICs reported in the weekly log that they did not work in a role of curriculum specialist (see Figure 5 next page). The majority (over 85%) of AICs in schools devoted their time to classroom support by observing instruction and providing feedback. Over 80% of the AICs in schools provided instructional support to students by acting as a Classroom Supporter to increase the quality and effectiveness of classroom instruction (see Figure 6 next page).


I did not work in this role this

week.

Helped teachers select and im-plement the

most appropriate strategies to

meet the learn-ing needs of all

students.

Helped with les-son planning, in-cluding review of lesson plans and providing feed-

back.

Developed assessments.

Aligned instruc-tion with curricu-

lum.

Supported teachers through modeling, teach-

ing, affirming, observing, and providing con-structive feed-

back.

Supported staff in aligning small group interven-tions with class-room instruction.

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

5%

67%

75%

15%

40%

79%

36%

Figure 5: Responses to Q8: In what ways did you serve as a Curriculum Specialist this week in your school? Check all that apply.


Worked with teachers to increase content knowledge.

Developed teachers' understanding of the structure of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

Dissected standards to guide identification of essential knowledge and skills.

Analyzed curriculum materials to determine which parts best support mastery of the standard.

Worked with district curriculum specialists to ensure implementation of adopted curriculum.

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

12%

62%

49%

27%

42%

24%


Figure 6: Responses to Q9: In what ways did you serve as a Classroom Supporter this week in your school? Check all that apply.


week.

Modeled lessons.

Co-Taught lessons.

Observed in-struction and

provided feedback.

Engaged in di-agnostic teach-ing to support teachers with struggling stu-

dents.

Provided in-structional sup-port to students.

Worked with teachers to de-

velop strate-gies/resources

for involving parents in the

academic achievement

process of their children.

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

2%

24%

27%

86%

37%

82%

26%

AICs are expected to engage in academic student support for at least 20% of their time. As exhibited in Figure 7 below, over 90% of the AICs reached this goal.

Figure 7: Responses to Q10: Did you spend at least 20% of your time providing academic student support?

92%

8%

YESNO

Learning Facilitator is a role that designs collaborative, job-embedded, standards-based professional learning. Providing opportunities for teachers to be reflective in their practice is the preferable way for 60% of the AICs in each school level to serve as learning facilitators. Informal, "just in time" professional development (small group or one-on-one), as well as coaching which provide job-embedded professional development opportunities are two approaches frequently used by AICs acted to facilitate learning (see Figure 8).


Figure 8: Responses to Q11: In what ways did you serve as a Learning Facilitator this week in your school? Check all that apply.


week.

Planned pro-fessional de-

velopment for staff.

Provided/facili-tated formal professional development

(could be small or large group).

Provided in-formal, "just in time" profes-sional devel-

opment (could be small group

or one-on-one).

Organized pro-fessional devel-opment by an

outside "consul-tant" (could be anyone outside of your school

staff).

Reflected on ef -fectiveness of

professional de-velopment.

Provided oppor-tunities for

teachers to be reflective in

their practice.

Used the coach-ing cycle to pro-

vide job-em-bedded profes-sional develop-ment opportu-

nities.

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

9%

44%

41%

56%

15%

40%

60%

47%

In order to serve as a Mentor and increase instructional skills of the novice teacher, 77% of the AICs supported novice teachers, and 55% of the AICs supported teachers who are new to the school, yet not new to teaching (see Figure 9).


Figure 9: Responses to Q12: In what ways did you serve as a Mentor this week in your school? Check all that apply.


Supported novice teachers.

Supported the mentors of the novice teachers.

Organized/facilitated professional development to support mentors/mentees.

Supported teachers who are new to the school, yet not new to teaching.

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

14%

77%

37%

14%

55%

An overwhelming percentage of AICs chose to meet with school leadership to determine weekly focus of work, followed by working collaboratively with the school's formal leadership to design, implement, and assess school change initiatives, ensure alignment, and focus on intended results as a School Leader (see Figure 10 next page).

AICs assist in ensuring that student achievement data drives instructional decisions at the classroom and school level when they play the role of Data Coach. From Figure 19 on page 16, one can see that AICs were actively participating in most phases of the process of data utilization. Data show that analyzing data (66%) became the phase that got most attention among AICs in schools. As three steps that finalize the whole process, build capacity around data (54%), collecting data (53%) and assist others in identifying "next steps" based on data (51%) got over half of the AICs involved in schools. Data show that less than 10% of the AICs did not work in this role.


Figure 10: Responses to Q13: In what ways did you serve as a School Leader this week? Check all that apply.

I did not serve in this role this week.

Served on SLT/SIT (School Leadership Team/School Improvement Team).

Met with school leadership to determine weekly focus of work.

Represented school on community or district committees.

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

5%

54%

86%

15%

Figure 11: Responses to Q14: In what ways did you serve as a Data Coach this week in your school? Check all that apply.


week.

Collected data.

Compiled data.

Analyzed data.

Presented data.

Built capacity around data.

Assisted others in identifying "next steps"

based on data.

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

9%

53%

50%

66%

32%

54%

51%

Over 60% of AICs in schools contributed to create disequilibrium with the current state

as an impetus to explore alternatives to current practice as Catalysts for Change by building relationships to foster a safe, trusting school environment. Over 20% of the AICs did not identify themselves working in this field in the weekly log (see Figure 12 on the next page).


Figure 12: Responses to Q15: In what ways did you serve as a Catalyst for Change this week in your school? Check all that apply.


Publically seek feedback.

Publically reflect and refine your own practice.

Respectfully question the status quo.

Speak the unspoken as a way of initiating conversation about alternative ways of thinking and behaving.

Built relationships to foster a safe, trusting school envi -ronment.

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

21%

26%

36%

35%

30%

63%

Approximately 69% of AICs participated in either formal or informal learning experiences as a way to model continuous learning, to keep current, and to be a thought leader in the schools as a Learner. Modeled attitudes and behaviors that reflect a learner mindset was used by approximately 55% (see Figure 13).

Support collaboration, engage teachers in reflective activities, and engage teachers in trust-building conversations are three ways AICs reported continually building relationships and trust within their school communities; each of these activities engaged at least 60% of the AICs (see Figure 14 on page 23).

Figure 13: Responses to Q16: In what ways did you serve as a Learner this week in your school? Check all that apply.


Participated in either

formal or in-formal

learning ex-periences.

Modeled atti-tudes and behaviors

that reflect a learner

mindset.

Identified and communi-cated what you want to

learn.

Modeled reflection as a process to support own

learning.

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

13%

69%

55%

40%

42%


Figure 14: Responses to Q17: To continually build relationships and trust within your school community, what activities did you engage in this week? Check all that apply.

I did not work in this capacity this

week.

Supported col-laboration.

Engaged teachers in reflective activ-

ities.

Engaged teachers in trust-building conversations.

Facilitated peer walkthroughs at

my school.

Completed walk-throughs with

administration.

Participated in non-coaching re-lated activities to

build relation-ships and trust.

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

5%

68%

61%

62%

12%

37%

43%

AICs strived to continually build relationships among their AIC colleagues as well. For this purpose, 71% AICs chose to communicate with another AIC for resources/support, while 47% provided resources/support to another AIC (see Figure 15).

Figure 15: Responses to Q18: To continually build relationships among your AIC colleagues, what activities did you engage in this week? Check all that apply.

I did not work in this capacity this

week.

Communicated with another AIC

for resources/support.

Provided re-sources/support to

another AIC.

Completed a ver-tical collegial walkthrough.

Completed a linear collegial walk-

through.

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

17%

71%

47%

4%

3%


AICs sometimes practice non-coaching duties. Approximately 30% of the AICs reported not being assigned non-coaching duties in the weekly logs. Data show that approximately 37% of the AICs participated in lunch duty, and approximately 31% participated in bus duty (see Figure 16).

Figure 16: Responses to Q19: Non-Coaching Duties: This week I participated in the following non-coaching related assigned duties. Check all that apply.

I was not assigned non-coaching duties this week.

Bus Duty

Lunch Duty

Hall Duty

Recess Duty

Substitute in a Classroom

Administer/Proctor an Assessment

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

30%

31%

37%

28%

15%

6%

21%

AICs are expected to complete a minimum of 2 Coaching Cycles each week (including pre-observation conference, observation/modeling/co-teaching, and post-observation conference with action steps). As can be seen in Figure 17, 55% of the AICs achieved the target. 23% completed 1 Coaching Cycle per week and another 22% did not complete any Coaching Cycles.

Figure 17: Responses to Q20: This week I completed _____ Coaching Cycles.

0 1 2 3 4 5+0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

22% 23%

44%

7% 2% 2%

Series1


Additionally, AICs are expected to complete a minimum of 10 walk-throughs each week. As shown in Figure 18 (next page), 13% of AICs reached the minimum number of walk-throughs each week.

Figure 18: Responses to Q21: This week I completed _____ classroom walkthroughs.

13%87% >10

<10

The District’s job description for an Academic Instructional Coach (referenced with link on page 15) includes nine out of 12 essential functions directly related to supporting, assisting and providing strategies to increase teacher effectiveness. Completion of coaching cycles and walk-throughs at the desired rates by all AICs should be a goal for the new school year.

Figure 19 (next page) illustrates the time AICs spent in each category during their work week. Data show that the AICs spent the largest percentage of time as a Classroom Supporter. It should be noted that the question itself indicated that “Remember that at least 20% of your time should be spent providing academic student support (Classroom Supporter)”.

The next category of the AICs’ responsibility, Instructional Specialist, showed an average of 10% out of the amount of time AICs worked in schools. Following Instructional Specialist, Data Coach and Resource Provider also has a considerable share of time in schools.

School Leader, Curriculum Specialist, Learning Facilitator and Learner are other roles that AICs devoted less time to. The average percentages of time AICs spent on practices belonging to these four categories were around 7% in the district.


Figure 19: Responses to Q22: Please enter the percentage of time spent in each category. Remember that at least 20% of your time should be spent providing academic student support (Classroom Supporter).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

9% 9%7%

10%

20%

5%7%

8%7%

4%5% 5%

2%

Resource Provider

Data Coach

Curriculum Specialist

Instructional Specialist

Classroom Supporter

Mentor

Learning Facilitator

School Leader

Learner

Catalyst for Change

Relationships and Trust Building

Non-Coaching Related Assigned Duties

Other

Teacher CertificationThe percentage of classes taught by Highly Qualified (HQ) teachers7 improved slightly

during 2015-16. As seen in Table 13, 39 of the Title I schools (60%) reported that 90% or more of the classes were taught by such a teacher, 14 (21.5%) met the goal of 100%. All schools except one have 60% or more of their classes taught by a highly qualified teacher; the exception is Patrick Henry Elementary with only 41%. 30 schools have fewer classes with HQ teachers, including seven schools that have decreases of more than 10% from the previous year. Among the 7,067 courses recorded at all Title I schools this school year, 83.7% were taught by HQ teachers. With the target of 95%, it is expected that 799 additional courses should have teachers who were highly qualified.

Much of this shortage may have to do with generally higher levels of turnover that exists for urban school districts, which experience approximately 20% teacher turnover. 8 Over the course of 2015-16 school year, 309 teachers of the total 2,019 teachers employed by the district did not finish the school year. This included 172 teachers who voluntarily resigned, 89 teachers who were not rehired , 42 teachers who retired, and two who were separated due to other reasons. 266 new teachers were hired. To fill this gap, schools are forced into a situation of assigning teachers who do not have appropriate certifications to the classrooms.

7 Highly Qualified Teacher - An individual who has the appropriate certification for his/her teaching assignment.8 Alliance for Excellent Education. (2014, July). On the path to equity: Improving the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Retrieved October 23, 2015 from http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf.


http://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf

Table 13: Percent of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers by School Site

School

2015 Percent of Classes with

Highly Qualified Teachers9

2016 Percent of Classes with

Highly Qualified Teachers10

Elementary Schools

Academy of Environmental Sciences and Math Elementary 66.0% 95.35%

Adams Elementary 98.1% 100.0%

Ames VPA Elementary 98.6% 96.97%

Ashland Elementary 95.5% 94.92%

Bryan Hill Elementary 97.0% 97.14%

Buder Elementary 100.0% 100.0%

Clay Elementary 62.5% 62.9%

Columbia Elementary 66.7% 96.8%

Cote Brilliante Elementary 87.0% 92.9%

Dewey IS Elementary 83.6% 100.0%

Dunbar Elementary 42.9% 60.9%

Earl Nance Sr. Elementary 93.9% 93.4%

Farragut Elementary 96.4% 100.0%

Ford Elementary 66.1% 91.8%

Froebel Elementary 96.1% 95.7%

Gateway Elementary 76.9% 68.5%

Gateway Michael Elementary 71.4% 89.5%

Hamilton Elementary 92.5% 96.2%

Henry Elementary 61.5% 42.5%

Herzog Elementary 97.1% 69.6%

Hickey Elementary 100.0% 100.0%

Hodgen Elementary 100.0% 100.0%

Humboldt Academy 96.0% 100.0%

9 2015 data obtained from DESE’s online Missouri Comprehensive Data System on 10/12/16.10 2016 data provided by district’s Human Resources Certification Officer.


Jefferson Elementary 66.7% 100.0%

Laclede Elementary 100.0% 68.3%

Lexington Elementary 93.6% 96.3%

Lyon ABI Elementary 83.2% 75.9%

Mann Elementary 96.8% 91.5%

Mason Elementary 96.3% 97.2%

Meramec Elementary 100.0% 100.0%

Monroe Elementary 93.1% 98.2%

Mullanphy Elementary 100.0% 97.7%

Nahed Chapman N.A. Academy -- 80.3%

Oak Hill Elementary 97.9% 100.0%

Pamoja Preparatory Academy 54.5% 89.7%

Peabody Elementary 94.7% 97.5%

Shaw Elementary 98.3% 100.0%

Shenandoah Elementary 65.9% 61.9%

Sigel Elementary 100.0% 97.7%

Stix Early Childhood Center 100.0% 98.3%

Walbridge Elementary 62.2% 81.3%

Washington Montessori 98.5% 98.0%

Wilkinson Early Childhood Center 96.9% 96.8%

Woerner Elementary 100.0% 100.0%

Woodward Elementary 94.9% 100.0%

Middle Schools

Academy of Environmental Sciences and Math Middle 75.0% 63.4%

Busch Middle School 95.8% 96.2%

Carr Lane Middle School 75.1% 68.3%

Compton Drew ILC Middle School 76.5% 74.6%

Fanning Middle School 93.6% 78.0%

Gateway Middle School 70.7% 64.3%


Langston Middle School 77.4% 80.7%

Long Middle School 89.1% 88.8%

Yeatman-Liddell Middle School 83.8% 66.9%

High Schools

Carnahan School of the Future 88.6% 90.4%

Central VPA High School 89.5% 83.5%

Cleveland NJROTC High School 99.4% 97.9%

Clyde C Miller Career Academy 93.8% 94.3%

CAJT at Nottingham 0% 100.0%

Gateway High School 88.4% 85.9%

Roosevelt High School 84.7% 79.3%

Soldan IS High School 86.6% 93.7%

Sumner High School 95.3% 85.1%

Transportation & Law High School 76.3% 73.9%

Vashon High School 78.7% 72.7%

Instructional Support & RigorInstructional support and rigor comprise the strategies used to provide teachers with

resources to improve the depth of knowledge (DOK) in student learning, provide additional instruction to students who are below expected levels in math and/or communication arts, and implement programs that are meant to enhance student learning.

Response to Intervention (RTI), as a way of tiered instructional support, is utilized in most Title schools to create tiered groups to implement differentiated instruction in Communication Arts and Math to facilitate improvements of students’ academic skills. RTI is, “simply put, a process of implementing high-quality, scientifically validated instructional practices based on learner needs, monitoring, student progress, and adjusting instruction based on the students’ response.”11 Students receive interventions based on their tier placement.

As part of the school's RTI model, Double Dose Reading and Double Dose Math were provided to selected students as a remedial instructional program in a fair number of Title I

11 Bender, W. & Shores, C. (2007). Response to Intervention.


schools. This supplemental learning experience supports students’ improvement on their reading, writing, and math skills. Some other examples of instructional strategies implemented in Title I schools include: guided reading and math, ONLINE Acuity practice, SLPS Literacy Model, academic vocabulary skills, mini-lessons and Learning Centers. The district also employed two outside contractors, Blueprint Math Fellows and North Campus, to provide math intervention services at ten elementary schools and one middle school.

Excellent Classroom Tool ResultsQuestions in the Excellent Classroom tool surveys that pertained to Instructional

Support and Rigor have been segmented into six specific categories: Classroom Objectives, Classroom Instruction, Formative Assessment, Student Engagement & Participation, Classroom Culture & Expectations, and Classroom Management Support. The elements and rubric for the Excellent Classrooms evaluations shared in this section can be found in the Appendix.

Classroom ObjectivesAccording to the survey results (see Figure 20), roughly 50% of observations believe that the learning objectives are posted and verbalized (observable – make definitive) by the teacher. The teacher can connect the task to the larger scope of learning (relevance). Learning objective and observed instruction aligns to the appropriate level of rigor for that specific standard.

Figure 20: Learning Objective

13%

51%

19%

8%

Mastery Proficient Progressing Continued Support

Classroom InstructionAccording to the survey results (see Figure 21) over 50% of observations believe that the delivery of lesson is fully structured to include a gradual release of responsibility to students. Most of the lesson utilizes engaging activities and high quality, appropriate materials that reinforce mastery of the standard. Teacher and students sometimes work with a sense of “urgency” and strategically adjust the lesson to maximize the learning time.


Figure 21: Lesson Structure and Pacing

14%

55%

25%

7%


Formative AssessmentAccording to the survey results (see Figure 22), roughly 50% of observations believe that the lesson sometimes allows students to wrestle with challenging questions, scenarios, and problems that have multiple correct solutions or pathways to the solution. Teacher gathers data on individual student understanding throughout the lesson, allowing teacher to differentiate or reteach as needed.

Figure 22: Formative Assessment

13%

52%

27%

7%


Student Engagement and ParticipationAccording to the survey results (see Figure 23), approximately 56% of observations believe that the teacher sometimes uses strategies to include all students in the learning and activities. Teacher creates an environment where participation and engagement are expected from most students. Student responses sometimes use appropriate academic vocabulary, provide


evidence and thoughtfulness, and make personal connections to their learning. Students require some teacher prompting for high quality responses.

Figure 23: Student Engagement & Participation

16%

56%

23%

4%


Questioning and FeedbackAccording to the survey results (see Figure 24), approximately 56% of observations believe that the teacher pushes student thinking with rigorous questioning, complex reasoning, and extended thinking. Teacher circulates to assess the work of approximately 80% of students. Teacher gives high quality, positive, constructive feedback to approximately 80% of students.

Figure 24: Questioning & Feedback

13%

56%

26%

5%


Classroom Culture & ExpectationsAccording to the survey results (see Figure 25), approximately 60% of observations believe that the teacher and students hold high expectations for themselves and others in the classroom, resulting in meaningful work most of the time. Most students assume responsibility for an orderly and safe environment, requiring little support from the teacher.


Figure 25: Classroom Culture & Expectations

21%

58%

17%

4%


Classroom Management SystemAccording to the survey results (see Figure 26) approximately 55% of observations believe that the classroom has an established management system allowing little loss of instructional time. Teacher rarely highlights misbehavior in an inappropriate manner. Most students correct misbehavior immediately following teacher redirection. Teacher usually provides precise directions that are specific, concrete, sequential, and measurable, resulting in a majority of students meeting expectations

Figure 26: Classroom Management System

22%

56%

16%

5%


Early Childhood EducationAs reported by the Early Childhood Education Department, no Title I funds were

received in the 2015-16 school year for Project Construct. There was a total of $5,761,372.26


budgeted from Title I funds and a total of $5,801,182.44 was spent. The self-evaluation form submitted to this office provided no specific information regarding these expenditures.

Family & Community InvolvementIn line with the legislative purpose of Title I.A, the Office of Family and Community

aimed to expand family involvement in making the parent/family and the community a part of the educational process of students.

The Office of Family and Community had success in actively involving parents/families this year as, according to the Coordinator of Family and Community Engagement.

Communication between schools and families has been emphasized. As a part of such efforts, effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communication about school programs and student achievement were designed, parents were included in the school’s decisions and developed as leaders and representatives in their schools. Moreover, daily phone calls, outreach, and at times home visits were performed to decrease student absences or academic problems.

In addition, assistance was offered to families to improve students’ learning environment at home. The office offered information and ideas to families about how to help their children at home with homework and other curriculum related activities, provided families with resources to meet basic needs monthly, and helped all families establish a home environment to support children as students.

While the office assisted families, it also made use of resources that families and the community could contribute. For instance, the office identified and integrated resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student development; recruited and organized parental help and support; conducted surveys to determine interest and talents of parents/families to identify needs, resources, availability and opportunities for participation.

There were also challenges that impeded the efforts as reported by the office; namely, the program lack of administrative support (in the school building), its need for current technology devices (i.e., computers, software, training, etc.) and more professional development opportunities. These same challenges were noted in the 2015 report.

The office provided 63 full-time Family and Community Specialists (FCS) and created more awareness and effectiveness in promoting stronger parental involvement. FCS support student academic success in numerous ways. One of the FCS’s primary functions is to host activities and events that involve parents in the academic success of their children. Activities


and events bring the school community together, build ties between school, home, and community, and ultimately support family growth and student achievement.

Figure 27 shows the number of events held based on the grade-level of the site. Most events took place at the elementary school level; this is to be expected since there are more Title I elementary schools than other school levels.

Figure 27: Number of Family Activities/ Events by School Level

High Schools

Middle Schools

Elementary Schools

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

91

80

771

The events and activities hosted by the FCSs are divided into three basic types:

ACADEMIC: Events that educate parents and/ or students in school subject areas or test; promote school attendance and academic success.

PARENTAL: Events that teach families how to be better parents for their children, support parents in their own lives, or provide an opportunity to be involved in school decisions. The majority of these events and activities also have a secondary academic component.

SPECIAL: All other events fall under this category. These events can be student showcases or ceremonies, providing an opportunity for students to demonstrate and celebrate their academic and extracurricular talents.

As seen in Figure 28, events classified as “Parental” were most common, with “Special” activities and events a close second. Some events may be represented more than once because it is possible for a single event to qualify as two different types.


Figure 28: Types of Family Activities/ Events

25.1%

38.2%

36.6%

AcademicParentalSpecial

Student InterventionIntervention services support the implementation of models to address student issues

that can impact attendance and academic achievement. One model that was implemented in some Title I schools was Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), a holistic school-wide approach for addressing behavioral issues. The purpose of PBIS is to increase the amount of positive behavior and decrease the amount of student discipline infractions, which will enhance school culture and climate and lead to academic improvement of all students. PBIS is a check and connect process. A process through PBIS was being utilized by Title I schools to determine student needs and provide interventions accordingly; professional development on strategies to develop and implement behavior intervention plans was offered to staff.

Through the PBIS model, data is collected, and then a matrix is created by related staff to identify a clear set of expectations of behaviors in identified locations with a focus on responsibility and respect. After this, the method for ongoing monitoring would also be developed. To reach these expectations, students were introduced to positive behavior examples, for instance, they participated in assemblies where the guest speakers encouraged

positive behavior, and/or a mentor group where mentors reinforced positive behavior. The implement/support staff mainly consists of counselor, teachers, social worker and nurse. These staff met regularly with identified parents of students with excessive absences and/or behavior issues to ensure parents have access to community resources to improve student achievement and attendance. Parent Specialists were in place in some Title I schools to assist coordinate and support the plan. They also communicated on a regular basis with families for information delivery. Students met with mental health specialists as indicated by excessive behavioral, emotional, and/or socially inappropriate behavior.


As an incentive to encourage students perform at a higher level, they would be rewarded for following the set expectations. Students showing growth and improvement in areas of academics, attendance, and behavior are recognized and awarded on a regular basis for their efforts.

Impact on Discipline Related Issues

As noted, Title I schools implemented models to address discipline issues and support positive behaviors. Below, Tables 14 and 15 display the discipline incidents in Title I and non-Title I schools over 2015 school year and 2016 school year, which could serve as a metric of the effectiveness of those models. For both Title I schools, elementary and middle schools saw slight increases in discipline incidents, while high schools saw slight decreases. For non-Title I schools Beaumont saw a significant increase and Collegiate School of Medicine and Biology saw a slight increase.

Table 14: Discipline Incidents for 2015 and 2016 in Title I Schools

SchoolEnrollment Number of Incidents

Incident Rate(per 100 students)

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLSAdams Elementary 278 271 6 4 2.2 1.5AESM Elementary 328 261 9 0 2.7 0.0Ames VPA Elementary 345 363 0 0 0.0 0.0Ashland Elementary 329 292 0 7 0.0 2.4Bryan Hill Elementary 184 154 0 4 0.0 2.6Buder Elementary 325 342 0 0 0.0 0.0Clay Elementary 164 116 0 0 0.0 0.0Columbia Elementary 182 125 0 1 0.0 0.8Cote Brilliante Elementary 235 185 2 1 0.9 0.5Dewey IS Elementary 371 381 1 2 0.3 0.5Dunbar Elementary 194 150 1 1 0.5 0.7Earl Nance Sr. Elementary 335 293 7 9 2.1 3.1Farragut Elementary 164 144 0 0 0.0 0.0Ford Elementary 297 233 1 2 0.3 0.9Froebel Elementary 316 254 0 0 0.0 0.0Gateway Elementary 511 522 1 2 0.2 0.4Gateway Michael Elementary 56 55 0 0 0.0 0.0Hamilton Elementary 350 283 5 0 1.4 0.0Henry Elementary 182 180 3 2 1.6 1.1Herzog Elementary 401 298 2 1 0.5 0.3Hickey Elementary 196 157 0 0 0.0 0.0Hodgen Elementary 269 223 0 3 0.0 1.3


Humboldt Academy 315 262 0 0 0.0 0.0Jefferson Elementary 203 187 3 3 1.5 1.6Laclede Elementary 280 206 5 1 1.8 0.5Lexington Elementary 339 328 4 4 1.2 1.2Lyon ABI Elementary 387 380 11 1 2.8 0.3Mann Elementary 310 242 2 0 0.6 0.0Mason Elementary 414 402 0 0 0.0 0.0Meramec Elementary 232 197 5 5 2.2 2.5Monroe Elementary 311 292 0 1 0.0 0.3Mullanphy Elementary 379 377 3 8 0.8 2.1Oak Hill Elementary 314 268 0 4 0.0 1.5Nahed Chapman N.A. Acad. -- 196 -- 0 -- 0.0Pamoja Preparatory Academy 382 352 6 12 1.6 3.4Peabody Elementary 226 191 10 2 4.4 1.0Shaw Elementary 384 377 2 0 0.5 0.0Shenandoah Elementary 183 167 2 1 1.1 0.6Sigel Elementary 259 236 0 0 0.0 0.0Stix Early Childhood Center 330 327 0 0 0.0 0.0Walbridge Elementary 158 194 2 4 1.3 2.1Washington Montessori 307 308 0 0 0.0 0.0Wilkinson Early Childhood 177 161 0 0 0.0 0.0Woerner Elementary 382 384 1 2 0.3 0.5Woodward Elementary 358 289 0 0 0.0 0.0MIDDLE SCHOOLSAESM Middle 282 216 18 10 6.4 4.6Busch Middle School 349 346 7 8 2.0 2.3Carr Lane Middle School 557 563 10 7 1.8 1.2Compton Drew Middle School 496 481 27 35 5.4 7.3Fanning Middle School 375 356 18 27 4.8 7.6Gateway Middle School 559 564 21 6 3.8 1.1Langston Middle School 282 228 21 19 7.4 8.3Long Middle School 239 210 19 7 7.9 3.3Yeatman-Liddell Middle School 358 350 39 50 10.9 14.3HIGH SCHOOLSCarnahan School of the Future 414 383 20 22 4.8 5.7Central VPA High School 396 408 0 0 0.0 0.0Cleveland NJROTC High School 290 269 13 12 4.5 4.5Clyde C Miller Career Academy 685 666 24 41 3.5 6.2CAJT at Nottingham 136 143 0 0 0.0 0.0Gateway High School 1,121 1,148 26 16 2.3 1.4Roosevelt High School 625 518 65 59 10.4 11.4Soldan IS High School 554 593 14 11 2.5 1.9Sumner High School 440 356 121 102 27.5 28.7Transportation & Law @ NW 364 370 17 42 4.7 11.4Vashon High School 645 616 173 84 26.8 13.6Total 21,809 20,193 747 645 3.4 3.2


Table 15: Discipline Incidents for 2015 and 2016 in Non-Title I Schools

SchoolEnrollment Number of Incidents

Incident Rate(per 100 students)

2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

BEAUMONT CTE HIGH SCHOOL 442 456 14 34 3.2 7.5CARDINAL GLENNON HOSPITAL 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0COLLEGIATE SCHOOL OF MED/BIO 110 174 0 1 0.0 0.6EXTERNAL LOCATION 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0KENNARD/CLASSICAL JR. ACAD. 357 326 0 0 0.0 0.0MALLINCKRODT A.B.I. ELEM. 241 255 0 0 0.0 0.0MCKINLEY LEADERSHIP ACAD. 535 528 3 2 0.6 0.4METRO HIGH 335 334 0 0 0.0 0.0ST. LOUIS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL 23 18 0 0 0.0 0.0VO. TECH. TUITION 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0Total 2,043 2,091 17 37 0.8 1.8

The disciplinary actions for the incidents in Title I schools can be seen in Table 16. There was an increase in In-School Suspensions and a decrease in Out-of-School Suspensions when comparing data to the prior year. For those incidents which warranted an Out-of-School suspension, 99.1% of those were for 10 consecutive days. This rate is close to the 98.8% seen in the 2015 report.

Table 16: Disciplinary Actions for 2015 and 2016 Incidents in Title I Schools

School

Type of Removal (N) Length of Removal (N)

In-School Suspension

Out-of-School Suspension

Expulsion 10 Consecutive Days

More than 10 Consecutive

Days2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Adams Elementary 0 1 6 3 0 0 6 4 0 0

AESM Elementary 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0

Ames VPA Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ashland Elementary 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 7 0 0

Bryan Hill Elementary 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0

Buder Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clay Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Columbia Elementary 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0Cote Brilliante Elementary 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Dewey IS Elementary 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0


Dunbar Elementary 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0Earl Nance Sr. Elementary 0 0 7 9 0 0 7 9 0 0

Farragut Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ford Elementary 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

Froebel Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gateway Elementary 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0Gateway Michael Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hamilton Elementary 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

Henry Elementary 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0

Herzog Elementary 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Hickey Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hodgen Elementary 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

Humboldt Academy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jefferson Elementary 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0

Laclede Elementary 0 0 5 1 0 0 5 1 0 0

Lexington Elementary 0 0 4 2 0 0 4 4 0 0

Lyon ABI Elementary 0 0 11 1 0 0 11 1 0 0

Mann Elementary 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Mason Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Meramec Elementary 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0

Monroe Elementary 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Mullanphy Elementary 0 0 3 8 0 0 3 8 0 0

Nahed Chapman N.A. A. -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0

Oak Hill Elementary 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0Pamoja Preparatory Academy 0 0 6 12 0 0 6 12 0 0

Peabody Elementary 0 0 10 2 0 0 10 2 0 0

Shaw Elementary 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Shenandoah Elementary 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0

Sigel Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Stix Early Childhood Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Walbridge Elementary 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 0

Washington Montessori 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Wilkinson Early Childhood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Woerner Elementary 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0

Woodward Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


MIDDLE SCHOOLS

AESM Middle 3 0 15 10 0 0 15 10 3 0

Busch Middle School 3 2 4 6 0 0 7 8 0 0

Carr Lane Middle School 0 0 10 7 0 0 10 7 0 0Compton Drew Middle School 8 13 19 22 0 0 25 35 2 0

Fanning Middle School 0 0 18 27 0 0 18 27 0 0

Gateway Middle School 0 0 21 6 0 0 21 5 0 1

Langston Middle School 0 0 21 19 0 0 21 19 0 0

Long Middle School 2 0 17 7 0 0 17 7 2 0

Yeatman-Liddell Middle 1 0 38 50 0 0 38 50 1 0HIGH SCHOOLSCarnahan School of the Future 5 2 15 20 0 0 19 22 1 0

Central VPA High School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cleveland NJROTC High School 0 0 13 12 0 0 13 12 0 0

Clyde C Miller Career Academy 4 3 20 38 0 0 24 41 0 0

CAJT at Nottingham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gateway High School 0 0 26 16 0 0 26 16 0 0

Roosevelt High School 8 26 57 33 0 0 65 57 0 2

Soldan IS High School 0 0 14 11 0 0 14 11 0 0

Sumner High School 2 11 119 91 0 0 121 99 0 3Transportation & Law @ NW 0 0 17 42 0 0 17 42 0 0

Vashon High School 3 0 170 84 0 0 173 84 0 0

TOTALS 40 60 707 583 0 0 738 639 9 6

% of All Incidents 5.4 9.3 94.6 90.7 0 0 98.8 99.1 1.2 0.9

Students-in-Transition Office

The Students-in-Transition (SIT) Office, in compliance with the McKinney-Vento Act, works to guarantee homeless children and youth an education equal to what they would receive if they were not homeless. This act requires immediate enrollment of children, even if they are unable to provide previous academic records, immunization and medical records, proofs of residency, birth certificates, or other documentation that is normally required. School districts must also provide transportation for homeless children and youth to the school of their choice.


SIT’s goals and objectives are aligned with the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act’s four main themes: 1. School Access – immediate enrollment; 2. School Stability – right to remain at their school of origin; 3. Support for Academic Success - tutoring, transportation, hygienic and school supplies, counseling, parent education, job readiness training, outreach, and medical support; 4. Decisions that are Child Centered and in Their Best Interest – school choices, multi-disciplinary team meetings, and mode of transportation.

As efforts toward these goals, the SIT Office requested each student/parent that enters the office to complete a Needs Assessment. Through this assessment, many parents indicated the need for assistance with enrollment, tutoring, transportation, employment, hygiene, FAFSA and college applications, school supplies, birth certificates, school physicals, advocacy, furniture, basic household items, counseling, or representation/support on behalf of their children at multi-disciplinary team meetings. Once needs were identified, assistance was provided either via Title I funds, donations and/or referrals. The office hired clinical social workers to address student’s mental health concerns. It also organized and stocked (Title I and donations) a clothing closet called the “Unique Boutique,” conducted outreach, case management, provided a Pre-K Specialist, offered Skills for Success Classes, created shelter groups, offered Write Now Workshops for college readiness, composed a book entitled “After High School Graduation Handbook”, had Parental Involvement Support Groups, and offered the presentation “McKinney-Vento 101” district-wide.

The program’s success includes providing ongoing tutoring and educational supports to students-in-transition with housing (enrollment, supplies, groups and presentations). One objective of SIT was to provide a seamless entry into schools as SIT better identify homeless and foster care students. This is evidenced by increased number of students identified. As shown in Figure 29, number of students identified as homeless and foster care students have more than doubled since 2007.


Figure 29: Number of Students Identified As Homeless and Foster Care Students

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1,821

4,838

Students in Transition Enrollment

In terms of the program’s deficiency or weakness, the Coordinator of SIT found that getting staff to collectively execute the practice of immediate enrollment has been a challenge. The Coordinator states that “some are uncomfortable with enrolling minor children lacking a guardian.” The coordinator also shared that the office “intend(s) to incorporate more clinical counseling services” during the new school year as a step to improving services.

Office of Health Services

No information was received from the School Nurse Coordinator regarding health services.

Social Work Services

Social workers received no Title I funding during 2015-16 school year; therefore, they are not evaluated in this report.

Neglected and DelinquentNeglected and Delinquent programs are primarily funded through Title I.D. The services

aim to: 1) reduce juvenile delinquency; 2) improve school attendance; 3) increase life skills. The objectives were 1) Provide general guidance and support to at risk juvenile; 2) Promote


personal and social responsibility among juveniles; 3) Increase participation of juveniles in elementary and secondary education while increasing academic performance.

The actions taken to meet these goals and objectives include holding large group and individual counseling, consulting with St. Louis Juvenile Court staff to devise a reentry plan to mainstream juveniles into society and educational settings, as well as met with each juvenile to complete a behavior intervention plan and psychosocial assessment. The relationship that had been established between the St. Louis Juvenile Courts and the City of St. Louis City Justice Center with the Title I Social Worker allowed better communication and support to all juveniles in the system. Through the court system, each juvenile has a DJO that offers follow up services.

According to the self-evaluation form submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Student Support Services, many of the juveniles who received services returned to the program due to lack of community resources and parental support. Weaknesses are described as the lack of allocation of personnel and the inability to effectively evaluate the services due to the (short) length of stay for the juvenile involved. These same challenges were also noted in the 2015 report.

The three institutions that received Title I.D funding during 2015 – 2016 school year are John W. Griscom School, St. Louis City Justice Center and Medium Security. These institutions served a total of 185 students.

Table 17 provides the grade levels for students who received services from Neglected and Delinquent programs. Among the 185 students, there was one 4th grader and one 5th grader. There were 1.5% in 6th grade, 4% in 7th grade, 15% in 8th grade, 32% in 9th grade, 32% in 10th grade, 12% in 11th grade, and 2% in the 12th grade. Table 18 provides additional information regarding student demographics. 90% are male; 98% are black; and 24% were identified as having a disability.

Table 17: Students Receiving Services from Neglected & Delinquent programs

Grade 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Number of Students 1 1 3 8 28 59 59 22 4

Table 18: Student Demographics for Neglected & Delinquent programs

Gender

Male 90%

Female 10%

IEP

Yes 24%

No 76%


After exiting the program, 37% of students transferred to alternative schools, 3% returned to block assigned schools, 8% moved out of city to attend other schools, 4% dropped out, 5% were released to police or state custody, 4% attended Charter schools, 2% transferred to another school in the district, 1% were assigned to homebound instruction, 1% withdrew to receive psychiatric treatment, and 1% graduated. One student died while enrolled in the program and no additional information was available for the 32% remaining students.


RecommendationsOverall, Title I schools did show some improvements, including improved attendance

rates and staying on budget, but academic growth continues to be slow. This final section of the report includes some possible opportunities for the district to enhance and improve the effectiveness of the programs serving students in Title I schools.

1. Reinstate the Coordinator of AICs position

Academic Instructional Coaches were previously supported by a Coordinator. Without replacing this position, the AICs received limited targeted professional development. AICs relied on their principals and network superintendents for support, as well as other AICs. Reinstatement of the Coordinator position will allow for consistent and regular support of all AICs and allow both principals and network superintendents to focus their time on other responsibilities.

Completion of coaching cycles and regular walk-throughs was a challenge during the 2015-16 school year. A coordinator who is responsible for overseeing the work of the AICs can hold them accountable for supporting teachers with these tasks.

2. Increase Rates of Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers

The rate of classes taught by highly qualified teachers is below target. This problem was also noted in last year’s report. It is recommended that Title I schools require applicants to demonstrate proof of certification prior to any job offers or assignments. It is recommended that this practice is coordinated with the Office of Human Resources (HR) and that no teachers be assigned to a school until HR has evidence of the applicant’s certification.

3. Provide Math and Literacy Interventions

The district continues to struggle to show academic gains with students in Title I schools. The district has used various math and literacy interventions programs, presumably because of the consistently low results in both of these content areas. An analysis of the most cost-effective options, with the greatest return on investment and evidence of results, should be performed. The analysis should also consider what interventions and supports are in place for schools outperforming the state average, including Mason Elementary, Central VPA, and Clyde C. Miller Career Academy (for both Math and Communication Arts), and Farragut Elementary (for Math). The lowest performing schools should be assigned interventions identified by such an analysis.


4. Support Science Teachers in All Elementary and Middle School Grade Levels

The district has two Curriculum Specialists focused on Science. Given the continually low MAP MPI scores and performance levels in the Grade 5 Science, Grade 8 Science, and Biology state assessments, the district should prioritize supporting the science curriculum in all grades, not just those that are tested. By supporting students in years that they are not assessed and prioritizing the development of the science curriculum, schools will likely see students develop a stronger understanding of science and increase the likelihood that better results will be seen in future years.


Appendix

Department/Program Self-Evaluations


Professional Development

1. Total Title I money spent on professional development in the current school year: Approximately $536,809.05

2. Goals and Objectives:

The goal of the Department of professional Development is to “provide quality and highly effective teachers in every classroom in the St. Louis public Schools (SLPS).As such, the mission of the District’s Professional Development unit is “to provide a comprehensive, coordinated system of high quality professional learning designed to meet the goal of ensuring that every child, in every classroom, in every school has a highly effective teacher.”

3. Activities, strategies, and/or tactics used to meet the goals and objectives:

District-wide PD offerings; Utilization of the PD 360 software; extra-service support for those who would turnkey PD through the train-the-trainer model; monthly leadership meetings; and partnerships (such as EducationPlus and CharacterPlus).

4. Metrics Used to Measure Success:

Surveys and evaluations that are in the MyLearningPlan system that allow us to gather feedback on PD offerings. Survey Monkey data collected at the conclusion of Leadership meetings.

5. Number of Staff Delivering: 100+

6. Number of Individuals Benefiting:

Students 27,000

Parents Level Not Determined

School Staff 2000

Central Office Staff 50

7. Description of Results:

The results of the efforts of the PD offerings will be determined in the results received for the state assessments. Information will be available for public in later August. This year, the PD has been centered on aspects of the Transformation Plan, and the new ELA


Curriculum roll-out (Engage ELA). We are confident the results will show improvements (regardless of how incremental) have been made across areas.

8. Description of Strengths:

The district has Academic Instructional Coaches assigned to nearly every school. These individuals are critical is assisting us in providing PD district-wide. We also have identified lead teachers and Instructional Support Facilitators (ISF), and Curriculum Specialists that support quality PD in the District.

9. Description of Weaknesses:

The PD office will continue to find ways to offer more tiered PD sessions for teachers and leaders, and develop more differentiated sessions to meet the diverse needs and abilities of the teachers and students in the district. We continue to investigate best-practices as it concerns instruction and training large district staff at once on the various districtwide PD days.

10. Actions to take the following year to improve:

Strengthening the District-wide PD Committee Researching the PD Needs Assessment Process for Teachers and Leadership Making the PD Website more viable as a tool for disseminating and advertising pertinent

ongoing PD opportunities for teachers and leaders Maintaining a pool of highly qualified teachers that can readily be used to support

training efforts in the district


Academic Instructional Coaches

1. Total Title I money spent on professional development in the current school year: $0.00 There was no budget available from Title I for AIC professional development


AICs receive training and support on implementing district curriculum, effective coaching cycles, providing effective feedback, and other identified areas of professional growth as a coach. AICs facilitate PD for district-wide PD days.


AICs received support from their Network Superintendent and Principal. They engaged in peer collaboration groups


Coaching logs are submitted weekly using SurveyMonkey, documenting the work of the AIC at each site. School principals complete summative evaluations on AICs annually.

5. Number of Staff Delivering: 65 AICs


Students Click here to enter text.

Parents Click here to enter text.

School Staff Click here to enter text.

Central Office Staff Click here to enter text.


AICs document their work via their weekly log, reflecting the types of activities they are engaged with each day. This includes complete 2,998 coaching cycles and 16,540 classroom walkthroughs.


AICs operated as part of the school leadership team and engaged in the same training and development as school leaders.



Without a designated Coordinator to oversee the development of AICs this school year, there was limited targeted professional development. AICs engaged primarily in peer collaboration and school leadership team development.

10. Actions to take the following year to improve: Reinstate the AIC Coordinator position to ensure strong support and development for AICs throughout the school year.


Homeless and Foster Care Services (Students-In-Transition)

1. Total Title I money spent on other in the current school year: $422,000


SIT’s goals and objectives are aligned with the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act’s four main themes; 1. School Access – immediate enrollment 2. School Stability – students have the right to remain at their school of origin. 3. Support for Academic Success- tutoring, transportation, hygienic and school supplies, counseling, parent education, job readiness training, outreach, and medical support. 4. Decisions that are Child Centered and in Their Best Interest – school choices, multi-disciplinary team meetings, mode of transportation


Each student/parent that enters the SIT Office is expected to complete a Needs Assessment. Through this assessment, many parents indicated the need for assistance with enrollment, tutoring, transportation, employment, hygiene, FAFSA and college applications, school supplies, birth certificates, school physicals, advocacy, furniture, basic household items, counseling, representation/support on behalf of their children at multi-disciplinary team meetings. Once needs were identified, assistance was provided either via Title I funds, donations and/or referrals. SLPS’ SIT Office hired clinical social workers to address student’s mental health concerns, organized and stocked (Title I and donations) a clothing closet called the “Unique Boutique,” outreach, case management, Pre-K Specialist, Skills for Success Classes, shelter groups, Write Now Workshops for college readiness, composed a book entitled “After High School Graduation Handbook, Parental Involvement Support Groups, McKinney-Vento 101 district wide.


Click here to enter text.5. Number of Staff Delivering: 9


Students 4,838

Parents 2,260

School Staff 826




This program success includes providing ongoing tutoring and educational supports to students-in-transition with housing (enrollment, supplies, groups and presentations). One objective was to provide a seamless entry into schools as we better identify homeless and foster care students. This is evidenced by increased number of students identified.

8. Description of Strengths:The Students-In-Transition Office has grown over the years in terms of services. Students, parents, staff and community partners easily and readily access services without shame or barriers.


In terms of this program’s deficiency or weakness, getting staff to collectively execute the practice of immediate enrollment has been a challenge. In that some are uncomfortable with enrolling minor children lacking a legal guardian.


Based on an going tool (Needs Assessments) used with each student/family, the Students-In –Transition Office is better able to identify needs and implement processes. The upcoming school year, we intend to incorporate more clinical counseling services.


Family & Community Involvement

1. Total Title I money spent on family and community involvement in the current school year: $0.00


These goals and objectives relate to the legislative purpose of Title I.A by expanding family involvement in making the parent/family and the community a part of the educational process of our students such as: •Helping all families establish a home environment to support children as students •Designing effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communication about school programs and student achievement •Recruiting and organizing parental help and support •Providing information and ideas to families about how to help their children at home with homework and other curriculum related activities •Including parents in the school’s decisions and developing parents as leaders and representatives in their schools •Identifying and integrating resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student development


•Facilitated parent workshops (2 per school) •Provided families with resources to meet basic needs (monthly) •Contacted families of students with attendance or academic problems (daily) •Conducted formal conferences with parents/families (per administrator directive) •Facilitated Title I informational meeting (Parents Right to Know, Districts Complaint Resolution, Parent Compact, Parent Involvement Plan) (annually) •Completed annual evaluation of program efforts (annually) •Assisted with organizing active PTO, PTA or other parent organizations (annually) •Conducted surveys to identify interests, talents and availability (Bi-annually) •Organized and facilitated a district-wide Parent Action Council and conducted Parent Forum (annually)


Ongoing performance data has impacted activities, strategies, and tactics through interpretation of previous year’s data to actively engage parents/families and the community to be involved. Best practices for parental engagement were provided with monthly professional development, opportunities for parent workshops, attendance to Parent Action Council meetings. Providing full-time Family and Community Specialist created more awareness and effectiveness to promote stronger parental involvement. Provided daily phone calls and outreach, at times conducted home visits, to decrease student absences.


5. Number of Staff Delivering: 63 Family and Community Specialist


Students 27,000

Parents 25,500

School Staff Click here to enter text.



•Increased parental attendance by 50% from previous year at Title I Annual Informational meeting •Increased parental attendance by 50% from previous year at Title I Annual Review and Revision meeting •Increased parental attendance by 50% from previous year at district-wide Parent Action Council •Used surveys to determine interest and talents of parents/families to identify needs, resources, and opportunities for participation


The success of the program adhered to the Saint Louis Public Schools Parental Involvement Policy (P1230) •Helped all families establish a home environment to support children as students •Designed effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communication about school programs and student achievement •Recruited and organized parental help and support • Provided information and ideas to families about how to help their children at home with homework and other curriculum related activities •Included parents in the school’s decisions and developing parents as leaders and representatives in their schools •Identified and integrated resources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student development. Other noticeable successes of the program included: •Establishment of the Parent Action Council •Strong supervision and insight •The ongoing redirection of professional development •Creating a climate conducive to performing essential functions of the position



The program deficiencies include: Lack of administrative support (school building) Need for current technology devices (i.e., computers, software, training, etc.) More professional development opportunities


Actions to include: •Assertive communication from program director with building administrators •Develop opportunities to ensure more professional development •Funding request to obtain current technology devices (i.e., computers, software, training, etc.)


Neglected & Delinquent Services

1. Total Title I money spent on neglected and delinquent services in the current school year: $86.324


Goals: 1) Reduce juvenile delinquency 2) Improve school attendance 3) Increase life skills

Objectives:

Provide general guidance and support to at risk juvenile Promote personal and social responsibility among juveniles Increase participation of juveniles in elementary and secondary education while increasing

academic performance3. Activities, strategies, and/or tactics used to meet the goals and objectives:

Held large group and individual counseling, consulted with St. Louis Juvenile Court staff to devise a reentry plan to main stream juveniles into society and educational setting, met with each juvenile to complete a behavior intervention plan and psychosocial assessment. Provide the Division of Youth Services with educational minutes to transfer grades when earned at Griscom School.

4. Metrics Used to Measure Success: Report cards Reentry back into juvenile system

5. Number of Staff Delivering: 1


Students 185

Parents 185

School Staff 5

Central Office Staff 0


Many of juveniles in the program have returned due to lack of community resources and parental support.



The relationship that had established between the St. Louis Juvenile Courts and the City of St. Louis City Justice Center with the Title 1 Social Worker has allowed better communication and support to all juveniles in the system. Through the court system, each juvenile has a DJO that provides follow up services.

9. Description of Weaknesses:Services cannot be effectively evaluated due to the length of stay for the juvenile. Lack of allocation of personnel due to number of juveniles that enter the juvenile system at one time

Click here to enter text.


Meet with teachers and students individually to devise an academic plan, be a liaison between student, parent and transferring school, contact home school for grades, attendance, and behavior reports to aid in developing academic plan, increase parent support by providing community resources to aid juvenile in transitioning back into society. Meet with students upon entering the Juvenile Detention Center to provide orientation. Re-establish contact with Lori White of the St. Louis County Special School District to know when SLPS students are detained in the St. Louis County Detention Center. Partner with Central Reformed Church to provide mentoring and a monthly guest speaker


Excellent Classroom Elements & Rubric


title i allocations and expenditures - st. louis …€¦ · web view2015 2016 245.5 252.6 district...

Documents