agenda · 2016-02-15 · agenda durham public schools board of education instructional services...

AGENDA Durham Public Schools Board of Education

Instructional Services Committee

October 6, 2014

Fuller Administration Building, 511 Cleveland Street, Durham, NC

1. Call to Order

2. Moment of Silence

3. Agenda Review and Approval

4. Public Comment

5. Instructional Services Committee Meeting Minutes

I. September 8, 2014

6. Reports

I. Graduation Updates

II. School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top District Update

III. Evaluating the Use of Out-of-School Suspension

IV. Summary of Follow Up Items

V. Adjournment

Mission Statement

In collaboration with our community and parents, the mission of Durham Public Schools is to provide all students with an outstanding education that motivates them to

reach their full potential and enables them to discover their interests and talents, pursue their goals and dreams, and succeed in college, in the workforce and as engaged citizens.

Date: October 6, 2014

Durham Public Schools


PRECIS

Agenda Item: Instructional Services Committee Meeting Minutes

Staff Liaison Present: Stacey Wilson-Norman, Ed.D. Phone #: 560-3874

Main Points:

Administration is presenting meeting minutes for consideration and approval:

o September 8, 2014 – Instructional Services Committee

Fiscal Implications:

None

Strategic Plan Alignment:

None

Purpose

Information Discussion Action Consent

Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney __________

DRAFT

Minutes of the

Instructional Services Committee of the Board of Education


The Instructional Services Committee of the Durham Public Schools Board of Education held a meeting

on Monday, September 08, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board Room, Fuller Administration Building - 511

Cleveland Street, Durham, NC.

Committee members present

Minnie Forte-Brown, Chairperson, Matt Sears, Co-Chairperson, Natalie Beyer, Sendolo Diaminah, and

Heidi Carter were present. Leigh Bordley and Mike Lee were not present.

Administrators present

Dr. Bert L’Homme, Superintendent; Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for Academic

Services; Bill McNeal, District Transformation Officer (NCDPI), Dr. Teresa Daye, Executive Director of

Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment; Dr. Julie Spencer, Assistant Superintendent of Research and

Accountability; Dr. Alisa McLean, Area Superintendent; Emmett Tilley, Interim Area Superintendent;

John McCain, Area Superintendent; Hugh Osteen, Deputy Superintendent of Operations; Elizabeth

Shearer, Executive Director of Leadership Development and Chrissy Pearson, Chief Communications

Officer.

Attorney present

None

Call to Order/Moment of Silence

Chairperson Forte-Brown called the meeting to order and presided over a moment of silence.

Agenda Review and Approval

Chairperson Forte-Brown moved to adopt the agenda as presented.

General Public Comment

There was no public comment.

Approval of Minutes A motion was made and the minutes were approved as written with the request by committee member

Heidi Carter to include the names of the Board members who make and second motions during the

committee meetings.

Reports

Sustainability After Race to the Top

Public Comment: None

Bill McNeal provided an update on Sustainability after Race to the Top. Mr. McNeal introduced

members of his District Transformation team – Laurie Carr, Dan Davis, Wynn Whittington, Michael

Taranto, Michele Robinson, Wendy Carpenter, and Kay Campany, who were present for the meeting.

Mr. McNeal also mentioned Kendra March and Jamie Stroud from his team, who could not be present for

the meeting. Dr. Pat Ashley also was not present for the meeting; she had to attend a meeting in Halifax

County. Mr. McNeal provided a full update on the transformation model and professional development

for school leaders. The update also included information on the district performance composite data and

how DPS compares with neighboring districts. Finally the update took a look at DPS moving forward

with the effective leadership of the Superintendent, Board and Human Resources, organization alignment

Instructional Services Committee Minutes

Page 2

Draft – April 8, 2013

and curriculum revision, and communication and marketing. Mr. McNeal did provide feedback that the

district is on a sustainability path to lead the district to excellence.

The Board had a full discussion about this update. This agenda item was presented for information.

Read to Achieve Update


Dr. Teresa Daye provided an update on Read to Achieve. The update included information on the RtA

legislative changes, data and statistics, budget and implementation. Dr. Daye indicated that the district is

excited about the curriculum alignment and student growth related to RtA. A concern mentioned is

getting the children to the RtA camps who need it most.

The Board had a full discussion about this update. The agenda item was presented for information.

Mentoring and Coaching Programs


Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman provided an overview of the mentoring and coaching programs for principals

and teachers in Durham Public Schools. The Teacher Mentoring Program overview included information

on the desired outcomes of the program, the collaborative effort of several departments including

Academic Services, Human Resources, Professional Development and Finance in the creation of the

program, as well as a look at the data around teacher effectiveness and turnover rates. In addition, Dr.

Wilson-Norman provided information on a general overview of the program, key players and the criteria

for selecting teacher mentors, a communication timeline, projected costs and program evaluation.

Dr. Wilson-Norman also provided an overview of the Principal Coaching Program. This overview

included information on the desired outcomes of the program, a look at the data including principal

turnover rates, a general overview, and key players of the program. In addition Dr. Wilson-Norman

discussed criteria for selecting the principal coaches, as well as the communication timeline, training

topics, and projected cost of running the program.

Board Chair Heidi Carter expressed her gratitude and excitement for the teacher and principal mentoring

programs.

The Board had a full discussion about this update. This agenda item was presented for information. A

motion was made by committee member Natalie Beyer and seconded by committee member Sendolo

Diaminah to place this item on the agenda at the September full board meeting.

Summary of Follow-up Items

None

Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned.




PRECIS

Agenda Item: Graduation Changes and Updates

Staff Liaison Present: Megan H. Riggs Phone #: (919) 282-8897

Main Points:

Administration will provide an update on changes to graduation procedures.

This agenda item is presented for information.


These changes have been factored into the 2014 - 2015 Graduation Budget.


Goal IV – Ensure district and school climate and culture that develop effective and positive

relations and foster the well-being of students, staff, board and community.

Purpose

Information Discussion

Reviewed by: Finance: Attorney:


Graduation Changes and Updates Instructional Services Committee

October 6, 2014

Megan H. Riggs Performance Specialist & DPS Graduation

Coordinator

2

DPS Graduation Changes

• Changes – Tickets required for admission

– Tickets limited to ten (10) per graduate

– Bag checks completed before admission

• Implementation – 2013-14 Graduations

– Duke University’s Cameron Indoor Stadium

– North Carolina Central University’s McDougald Gymnasium

3

Rationale for Changes

• Standard security procedures at the venues

• Compromise

4

Communication Plan

• Timely, Frequent, and Consistent

• Memo to Graduation Coordinators and Principals

• Letter to be sent home with seniors

• DPS Graduation website

– Button on main DPS website

– Added to each high school’s school website

Discussion

5




PRECIS

Agenda Item: School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top District Update

Staff Liaison Present: Stacey Wilson-Norman, Ed.D. Phone #: (919) 560-3874

Dietrich Danner, Ph.D (919) 560-9419

Janneke Pulliam, M.S.A. (919) 560-2645

Main Points:

Administration will provide an update on the School Improvement Grant and Race to the Top for

the district.

This agenda item is presented for information.


These efforts are supported through federal, state, and local funds.


Goal I – Ensure achievement of high academic performance by all students.

Purpose


Reviewed by: Finance: Attorney:

Race to the Top and

School Improvement Grant

District Update


October 6, 2014

Stacey Wilson-Norman, Ed.D. Deputy Superintendent, Academic Services

Dietrich Danner, Ph.D. Janneke Pulliam, M.S.A. Director of Federal Programs School Improvement Coordinator Title I, II & Office of Civil Rights SIG & Priority

1

Presentation Outline • Provide a program evaluation overview for

the Race to the Top (RttT) and School Improvement (SIG) grants

• Provide an update for the Race to the Top Grant (RttT)

• Provide an update for School Improvement Grants (SIG)-Cohorts I and II

• Discuss next steps

2

Race to the Top (RttT) and

School Improvement Grant (SIG)

3

• The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the overall impact of grant implementation district-wide

• The report does not support the evaluation of the implementation at any particular school

4

RttT and SIG Program Evaluation

RttT and SIG Program Evaluation

5

Participating Schools

RttT SIG

W.G. Pearson Elementary Lowe’s Grove Middle

Neal Middle

Y.E. Smith Elementary Hillside High Durham PLC

RttT and SIG Program Evaluation Guiding Questions: • What has been the overall impact of the grant activities

on the leadership of the schools? • What has been the impact of the grant activities on the

teachers in the schools? • What has been the impact of the grant activities on the

students in the schools, both in terms of academic achievement and behavior?

• What has been the overall impact of the grant activities on the schools?

6

RttT and SIG Program Evaluation Findings Biscayne Research Group, April 2014

7

• Professional Development – Enhanced pedagogical knowledge – Increased involvement and collaboration among faculty and community – Increased willingness to improve instructional methods – Increased implementation of project-based learning

• Teacher Attendance – Maintained stable teacher attendance rate

• Teacher Retention – Demonstrated significantly greater rate of decline over a 3 year period


8

• Student Learning – Increased level of academic rigor – Increased student ownership of learning – Maintained student reading and math proficiency – Identified consistent performance in reading and math through 2013

• Student Behavior – Observed some improvement in overall student behavior – Maintained frequency of student behavior problems

• Teacher Retention – Demonstrated significantly greater rate of decline over a 3 year period


9

• School Impact – Improved organization and structure of schools – Transformed school culture – Identified and increased focus on student-centered learning – Increased focus on academic achievement – Increased use of data – Provided new and improved technology – Improved school climate and increased teacher collaboration – Offered extensive professional development opportunities


10

• School transformation lessons learned – Teacher turnover is a normal result of change in school culture – Strong leadership is necessary to change school culture and recruit

highly effective teachers – High teacher turnover may be detrimental in the success of grant

programs – Classroom management may facilitate or impede student achievement


11

• Summary and conclusions – Some schools exemplified a transformation in school culture – The outcomes for which data was available for some schools have not

demonstrated any significant changes – Factors contributing to schools not making significant changes may

have been attributed to the following: 1. School transformation takes time to become evident in the outcomes data 2. Student behavior, teacher turnover, and inconsistent leadership changes 3. Stable school leadership and faculty commitment resulted in schools making progress – There was no overall impact of the grants on teacher and student

outcomes wherein comparable data was available


12

• Recommendations – For future implementations of large transformation

projects, provide a greater amount of time for planning

– A specific focus should be placed on developing a consistent and appropriate behavior management system across schools

– Identify and attempt to address issues that create a high degree of staff turnover

13

Race to the Top (RttT)

RttT Initiatives Sustained by LEA

14

• W. G. Pearson Elementary School – Information Technology Position (1.0)-ADM – One-to-One iPad Integration/ Professional Development

(iPadagogy: Teaching & Learning with Mobile Technology)

• Lowe’s Grove Middle School – Information Technology Position (1.0)-ADM – One-to-One iPad Integration/ Professional Development

(iPadagogy: Teaching & Learning with Mobile Technology)

• Technology-sustained through the DPS Technology Refresh Plan

RttT Initiatives Sustained by LEA

15

• Neal Middle School – Citizens Schools Extended Day Program (2014-2015: one time funding) – NC New Schools Project (Principal & Teacher Coaching [Evidence-based Instructional Practices]) (2014-2015 no cost extension of service)

• Both items under review for continuation of services

School Improvement Grant (SIG)

16

SIG Initiatives Sustained by LEA (Cohorts I and II)

17

Durham PLC Y.E. Smith Elementary Hillside High

• Professional Development

• Technology


• High Quality Pre-K • Extended Day/Year


• Freshman Academy • School Design

Discussion

18




PRECIS

Agenda Item: Evaluating the Use of Out-of-School Suspension

Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Deborah Pitman, Ph.D. Phone #: 560-2554

Main Points:

Durham Public Schools contacted Dr. Jacob Vigdor with Duke University to conduct an

independent analysis of the district’s discipline data. The purpose of the analysis was to

explore various factors and their possible impacts on student behavior and suspension

rates.

Dr. Vigdor will share the findings from the analysis of discipline data. The ultimate

purpose of the project is to facilitate the administration in shaping student aid programs

and improve instruction within DPS.

Administration is presenting this for information.


None


Goal VI.3 – DPS will increase efforts to ensure a supportive and culturally-responsive

environment for students as measured by out-of-school suspension data, student and

parent surveys and school culture assessments.

Purpose


Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney__________

1

Evaluating the Use of Out-of-School Suspension in Durham Public Schools

Prepared for DPS by:

Jacob Vigdor

Vigdor Measurement & Evaluation, LLC

8309 30th

Ave. NW

Seattle, WA 98117

August 1, 2014

2

Executive Summary

This report makes use of offense-consequence data for Durham Public Schools in the 2012/13

school year to examine the use of Out-of-School suspension (OSS) as a disciplinary sanction.

The report focuses on disparities in the application of OSS by race and student exceptionality

status. Because the data used for analysis track students only from the point where they are

referred for discipline, this study can only examine disparities that arise as students progress

through the disciplinary referral system. It cannot examine student behavior – or the

determinants of that behavior – directly, nor can it evaluate the processes by which DPS

personnel observe this behavior and decide whether it warrants a referral.

Evidence indicates that among students referred into the disciplinary system for the same offense

at the same school, there are no statistically significant racial disparities in the application of

OSS, either in the aggregate or when examining the actions of any of the roughly 150 DPS

personnel who bear some responsibility for determining the consequences of disciplinary

referrals. Students with any exceptionality status are three percentage points more likely to

receive OSS, a differential that is statistically significant but small – approximately half of the

referrals in the database result in OSS.

Based on this analysis, the report concludes that there are two basic strategies for reducing

disparities in OSS. The first is to target disparities in student behavior or staff coding of student

behavior. This strategy is beyond the scope of this report. The second is to reduce the use of

OSS overall. The report notes that if OSS were banned outright, all disparities in its application

would automatically disappear. The report finds no evidence that the use of OSS reduces

recidivism and the possibility of an outright ban merits at least some administrative discussion.

Operating under the assumption that there is at least some value to OSS, the report outlines a

series of five policy changes that would reduce the frequency of its use. Based on data for the

2012/13 school year, these policies would cut the number of suspensions issued by nearly 75%

and reduce the number of student instructional days lost to OSS by over 80%. The suggestions

are as follows:

1. Avoid using OSS in response to minor offenses. The report identifies a set of 14 minor

offenses that are not punished with OSS in the majority of cases. Nonetheless, because

certain of these offenses are very common, they are responsible for over 36% of student

instructional days lost to OSS.

2. Adopt statutory maximum OSS durations for remaining offenses. The report

outlines a strategy for capping the duration of OSS at the median of observed durations in

the 2012/13 school year. This action would reduce the number of student instructional

days lost to OSS by nearly 10,000.

3. Prohibit the use of OSS in elementary school. Several DPS elementary school

campuses use OSS sparingly or not at all. This practice could be extended to all

campuses.

4. Forbid the use of OSS for a student’s first offense of the school year. More than half

of the students referred for discipline will not be referred again in a given school year;

3

current practice offers these students very little leniency. For students at low risk of

recidivism, the use of OSS seems difficult to justify.

5. Prohibit the staff member who refers an offense for determining the consequences

of that offense. When the same DPS staff member both refers an offense and determines

the consequences, students are 18 percentage points more likely to receive OSS and the

average suspension is a full day longer. Staff members with the authority to determine

consequences may react more strongly when they observe an offense than when the same

offense is described to them by another staff member. In practice, this scenario occurs

most often when an assistant principal refers an offense, thus this policy would require

such offenses to have consequences determined by the principal.

It is important to emphasize that this report is intended to inform rather than advocate.

Ultimately, the question of whether the benefits of OSS justify the social costs of the practice is a

matter of judgment and beyond the scope of this report. Among other considerations, OSS is a

low-cost form of remediation and requiring staff to deal more actively with problem students

would require an infusion of resources into schools serving a high-risk population.

Should the district’s leaders determine that OSS ought to remain a viable option, the

recommendations in this report would ensure that it is used sparingly and as equitably as possible

given possible disparities in underlying student behavior by race and exceptionality status.

Evaluating the Use of Out-of-School Suspension in Durham Public Schools


October 6, 2014

Dr. Jacob Vigdor

Vigdor Measurement & Evaluation, LLC

(Formerly Professor of Policy and Economics, Duke University)

Overview • Analysis of offense/consequence data for 2012/13. • Limited to analysis of disparities in consequence determination.

– Data do not permit analysis of disparities in decision to refer for discipline.

• Findings: – No racial disparities in referral for OSS among students referred for the

same offense in the same school. – Exceptional students 3% more likely to receive OSS than non-

exceptional student referred for the same offense in the same school.

• Recommendations: – To reduce incidence of OSS among minority and exceptional youth,

adopt strategies for cutting the use of OSS across the board. – Set of five suggestions projected to reduce the number of days lost to

OSS by more than 80%.

The Path to School Discipline

Determinants of behavior

Student behavior

Staff encoding of

behavior

Staff responses to

behavior

Social, economic, neurological factors not observed in the DPS data. Behavior may also be influenced by school policy, including disciplinary standards.

No actual behavior recorded in DPS data. Would require systematic observation of all students at all times by trained, unbiased observers.

Observed in DPS data, but only when students are referred for disciplinary action.

Disciplinary actions observed.

Why Do Disparities Exist? • Disparities in response to behavior: the focus of this analysis.

– Are students referred for the same coding of behavior treated equally irrespective of race or exceptionality?

• Disparities in the coding of behavior – Are students who engage in the same behavior coded

equivalently irrespective of race or exceptionality? – Data do not permit an assessment.

• Disparities in actual behavior – Data do not permit an assessment. – Disparities in behavior may reflect underlying disparities in the

determinants of behavior, including social or economic factors.

Behavioral Codes in the Offense/Consequence Data Common offenses: over 100 reported district wide each year. account for 89.1% of all days lost to suspension. – Common but minor: Bus misconduct, compliance w/directions or school

rules, disorderly conduct, truancy. 36.5% of all days lost to suspension. – Common, moderate to severe: assault, verbal abuse staff, fighting,

larceny, intimidation of staff, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a weapon. Account for more than 50% of all days lost to suspension.

– Nine uncommon minor offenses accounting for less than 1% of days suspended.

– Uncommon but moderate: extortion/coercion, gang activity, trespassing, bullying, property damage, verbal or physical intimidation of a student, sexual harassment, smoking, stolen property. Account for about 5% of days lost to suspension.

– Uncommon but severe: arson, false fire alarm, possession of alcohol, possession of a firearm, robbery, drug, sex. Account for about 6% of days lost to suspension.

Days Lost to Suspension per Student

• Measure of the severity of punishment applied.

• Sum up the number of OSS days given across all offenses in a category or at a particular school.

– Equal to the number of referrals at a school times the percent of referrals resulting in OSS times the average duration of OSS applied.

• Divide by enrollment count.

• Results show remarkable variation across DPS campuses.

Observations

• Data are for one year and do not necessarily reflect practices in place for 2013/14.

• On average, schools serving a more disadvantaged student body lose more student days to OSS per capita.

– This may reflect differences in behavior or the coding of behavior across campuses and does not necessarily indicate that discipline is being applied more strictly.

Testing for Disparities and Discrimination

Question 1: Are students referred for discipline equally likely to receive OSS? – Yes: response disparity – No: no response disparity

Question 2: Are students referred for the same offense equally likely to receive OSS?

– Yes: any response disparity reflects differences in offense severity. – No: response disparity.

Question 3: Are students referred for the same offense at the same school equally likely to receive OSS?

– Yes: any residual response disparity reflects differences in standards across schools; standards applied equally at each school.

– No: response discrimination.

Methodology

• Stepwise regression analysis – Starting point: simple model that addresses

question 1: are referred students treated equally?

– Step 2: addresses question 2: are students referred for the same offense treated equally?

– Step 3: addresses question 3: are students referred for the same offense at the same school treated equally?

Disparities in the Probability of Receiving OSS 2012/13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pe

rce

nta

ge P

oin

t G

ap

Baseline Same referral Same referral and same school

Disparities in the probability of receiving OSS 2012/13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Pe

rce

nta

ge P

oin

t G

ap

Baseline Same referral Same referral and same school

Implications • Racial disparities in OSS reflect some combination of the following:

– Racial disparities in behavior (not observed in this study) – Racial disparities in staff decisions to refer behavior (not observed in

this study) – Tendency for nonwhite students to be referred for more severe

offenses. – Tendency for nonwhite students to attend schools that apply stricter

discipline across the board.

• There is no evidence that the disparities are the result of DPS personnel applying different standards depending on the race of the student referred to them.

• There are, however, signs of discrimination by exceptionality status.

Possible strategies to reduce OSS disparities

• Strategy 1: discontinue the use of OSS altogether. – Pro: eliminates 100% of OSS disparities, across the

board.

– Con: requires schools to implement more costly forms of discipline.

– Note that there is no evidence that OSS reduces recidivism.

• Strategy 2: moderate the use of OSS.

• Five specific suggestions follow.

Suggestion #1: No OSS for minor offenses • Minor offenses do not usually result in OSS.

– Bus Misconduct – Compliance with Directions – Compliance with School Rules – Disorderly Conduct – Truancy – 9 other less common offenses

• Nonetheless, minor offenses account for more than 1/3 of days lost to OSS.

• In 2012/13, a ban on OSS for minor offenses would have kept students in school for an additional 7,638 days.

Suggestion #2: Maximum durations/ “sentencing guidelines” • Example: in 2012/13, 60 students were referred for smoking.

– 57% of those students were assigned OSS. – OSS lengths ranged from 1 to 10 days.

• Is there a plausible justification for applying such widely varying standards?

• Suggested guideline: maximum OSS length set equal to the median in 2012/13.

• Result: maximum OSS for smoking would be 1 day (more than half of the 60 students referred for smoking in 2012/13 received 1 day or less).

• Coupled with Suggestion 1, would have restored 17,608 days of instruction in 2012/13.

Suggestion #3: No OSS in Elementary School • Fewer behavior problems: more 9th grade students

were referred than pre-K through 5th grade combined. • By some measures, stricter discipline. Likelihood of

OSS as a consequence of referral higher for 4th graders than any other grade.

• At 2 DPS campuses, OSS was not used at all in 2012/13 (EK Powe and Little River). Strong relationship between student body race and OSS use across elementary schools.

• Suggestions #1 and 2 would eliminate most OSS in elementary school, but a total ban would add more than 1,000 extra days of instruction.

Suggestion #4: First offense leniency

• NC Court misdemeanor sentencing guidelines incorporate shorter maximum sentences for offenders with no prior convictions.

• Already some leniency in DPS: 5.7% less likely to receive OSS, duration shorter by 0.73 days.

• Most students referred in any given academic year will only be referred once.

• First offense leniency, layered on top of suggestions 1-3, would restore over 1,300 days of lost instruction.

Suggestion #5: Referring Staff Member Cannot Determine Consequences • In 28% of all referrals, the staff member making the referral

is also the member determining consequences. – Almost all these cases involve assistant principals or principals.

• When the same staff member plays both roles, OSS is 19 percentage points more likely and averages a full day longer. – Effect persists even when controlling for offense type and

school. – Extremely large effects: more than 6 times larger than observed

level of bias against exceptional students.

• Requiring a different staff member to determine consequences, in addition to suggestions 1-4, could restore as many as 1,400 days of lost instruction.

Conclusions and Caveats • No evidence of overt racial discrimination in

consequence determination; evidence of a 3 percentage point bias against exceptional students.

• This study cannot assess bias in staff coding of behavior, nor can it assess disparities in actual behavior.

• Best strategies to reduce disparities in OSS involve reducing the use of OSS across the board, which by design reduces disparities as well.

• The five suggestions offered here would reduce the number of days lost to OSS by over 83%.

DPS - Next Steps • Study and discuss strategies and suggestions in the

evaluation with elementary principals, secondary principals, and Board of Education

• Explore school-based and district-wide options in lieu of suspension – Specialized staff (Licensed Clinical Counselors, Licensed

Clinical Social Workers) – Mental Health Services in schools – Intensive professional development for teachers, staff

• Create programs and reallocate resources • Enact extensive review and revision of Code of Student

Conduct (offenses and consequences)

Discussion

agenda · 2016-02-15 · agenda durham public schools board of education instructional services...

Documents