agenda - dpsnc.net · pdf fileiii. academically and intellectually gifted (aig) plan 2016-2019...

AGENDA Durham Public Schools Board of Education

Academic and Student Services Work Session

October 6, 2016

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. Academic and Student Services Work Session Meeting Minutes

I. September 1, 2016

6. Reports

I. Math II and Math III NCFE Update

II. Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services

III. Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019

IV. Athletic Eligibility

V. Pre-K Sliding Scale

VI. Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM)

VII. Summary of Follow Up Items

VIII. 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 citizen

Date: October 6, 2016

Durham Public Schools

Academic and Student Services Work Session PRECIS

Agenda Item: Academic and Student Services Work Session

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

Main Points: Attached for committee consideration and approval is a draft copy of the following minutes:

• September 1, 2016

Fiscal Implications:

• None

Strategic Plan Alignment:

• N/A

Purpose

Information Discussion Action Consent

Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney __________

2

Minutes of the



September 1, 2016

The Durham Public Schools Board of Education Academic and Student Services Work Session

Committee met on Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:31 P.M. in the Board Room, Fuller

Administration Building - 511 Cleveland Street, Durham, NC.

Committee Members Present

Michael Lee, Chair; Minnie Forte-Brown; Steve Unruhe; Xavier Cason; and, Matt Sears

Administrators Present

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

Academic Services; Jacqueline Ellis, Assistant Superintendent; Alisa McLean, Assistant

Superintendent; John McCain, Assistant Superintendent; William Sudderth-III, Chief

Information Officer; Hugh Osteen, Deputy Superintendent of Operations; and Julie Spencer,

Assistant Superintendent for Research and Accountability

Attorney Present

None

Call to Order/Moment of Silence

Michael Lee, Chair, called the meeting to order and presided over a moment of silence.

Agenda Review and Approval

Mr. Lee made a motion to approve the agenda with changes and the motion passed unanimously.

Closed session followed Public Comment

Items I (2015-2016 Preliminary Data Release and II (Policy Revisions: Student Transfers,

School Assignment, and Program Magnet Schools were moved to items VI and VII)

Closed session to follow the adjournment

General Public Comment

None

Approval of Minutes

The August 4, 2016 minutes of the Academic and Student Support Services Work Session

Committee were unanimously approved.

3

| Academic and Support Services Work Session –September 1, 2016

Reports

Memorandum of Agreement between Durham Public Schools and North Carolina Central

University

Public Comment: None

Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman provided an update on the specifics of early college programming

and clarity regarding operational responsibilities according to the legislature and the alignment of

the ongoing commitment between the two entities. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has

been updated after a ten year period to parallel with facility usage, maintenance, security, and

traffic items of concern. The major components of the MOA has been executed by the Provost

and reviewed by Durham Public Schools and North Carolina Central University attorneys. The

current enrollment is 369 students.

The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The item was presented for action to be

executed immediately. The MOA was unanimously approved.

Contract for Services - Edmentum


DeShawna Gooch, Director of Accelerated Learning, and Richard Sheldahl, Director of Career

Technical Education (CTE) was seeking approval for a three-year contract with Edmentum. The

company will provide services through:

Plato Courseware - replaced Apex Learning and is structured to provide alternative

methods of recovering failed courses for students

Educational Options Academy - provides digital learning and acceleration options for

middle and high school students in exclusive situations

CTE Courseware - offers over 100 courses and serves as an additional instructional tool

for CTE teachers and student

With the implementation of a three year contract, the district will save $135,060.00.

The Board had a full discussion regarding the report. The contract was unanimously approved.

Contract for Services – Curriculum and Associates (iReady)


Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership, was seeking approval on

the Curriculum and Associates contract which supports:

iReady – Universal screener that supports the MTSS process for elementary and middle

schools in math grades 3-8 and reading grades 4-8. The iReady data monitors/measures

student growth during the beginning, middle and year-end

Teacher Toolbox – provides online instructional resources for students and teachers

Teacher-Direct Instruction – provides downloadable lessons to students based on the

diagnostic results


4


Contract for Services – Discovery Education


Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership, was seeking approval on

the Discovery Education contract which provides:

Digital resources for standards-aligned curricular activities, virtual field trips, and other

instructional materials to all schools from kindergarten to grade 12

Over 25,000 logins

Lessons and assignment resources created by DPS teachers


Contract for Services – Learning A-Z


Timothy Gibson, Director of K-5 Teaching, Learning and Leadership was seeking approval on

the Learning A-Z contract which provides:

Lesson plans and leveled texts that integrate science and social studies accessible to

teachers during reading for grades K-5

Tutoring/mentoring methods for teachers with specialized lessons for student intervention

Digital educational resources that support instruction and student practices in reading,

science, and writing.


2015-2016 Preliminary Data Release


Dr. Julie Spencer, Assistant Superintendent for Research and Accountability, provided an

overview of the federal and state accountability models and preliminary district data for the

2015-2016 school year. The report consisted of the summary and highlights of overall

achievements that were met or exceeded expected growth. She also provided a full report on the

school performance grades for Elementary, Middle, and High Schools.

Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for Academic Services, provided a full

report on the district goals, and implementation plans for 3rd

grade - students who enter pre-k or

kindergarten will be reading at or above grade level; 8th

grade - students will be prepared for high

school at the end of 8th

grade; and 12th

grade – an annual 2% graduation rate increase. The

Bottom-line expectations were adopted to support the District Improvement Plan’s academic

expectations that ensure systemic improvements to guarantee growth for all students. The

District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM) aligns with the District goals, supports the

implementation, and will monitor and measure student growth that will assist in evaluating

student efforts. A draft timeline and key data sets have been developed in order to assist with

measuring student growth.

5


Policy Revisions: Student Transfers, School Assignment, and Program Magnet Schools


The board of education approved the following revisions of Policy 4132 - Student Transfers and

Policy 4130 - School Assignment:

Students who are domiciled in the attendance zones of Holt and Easley calendar magnet

schools may opt out to their designated traditional schools without an “approved”

transfer. (4132.5)

Students who would receive a sibling priority or program link to a calendar magnet

school, but fail to submit a lottery application by the published deadline due to an

extenuating circumstance, may be given a priority to receive a transfer. (4132.6)

Students assigned to a school through a student transfer or lottery application may

voluntarily decline their assignment until the first day of school. (4132.8)

Revisions to Policy 4130-School Assignment reflect the changes approved for Policy

4132-Student Transfers.

The board discussed Policy 4131 - Program Magnet Schools to consider an assignment priority

for siblings of students assigned to a secondary program magnet school through the

application/lottery process (4131.2 and 4131.2.B). No action was taken.

The board had a full discussion and requested additional information from the administration in

preparation for a future discussion. The items were placed on the agenda for full board meeting.

Summary of Follow-up Items

There being no further business, Michael Lee, Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:30 P.M and the

board moved to closed session.

6


Academic & Student Services Work Session

PRECIS

Agenda Item: Math II and Math III NCFE Update

Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Alisa Mclean Phone: (919) 560-2550

Melissa Watson (919) 560-2505

Amy Gross (919) 560-2000 x21314

NCDPI communicated that the North Carolina Final Exam (NCFE) scores for NC

Math II and Math III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not be available to

include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades.

It is a local decision to additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II

and NC Math III.

Durham Board of Education Policy 3200.5 requires the student’s final grades in all

courses be determined by calculating 80% of the grade as the course average and 20% of

the student’s’ final grade.

Administration is asking for approval to waive the 20% required final exam calculation

for NC Math II and NC Math III.


None

Purpose


Reviewed by: Finance Attorney __________

7

Project Title: Math II and Math III NCFE Update

Project Team:

Dr. Alisa McLean, Assistant Superintendent of High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership

Melissa Watson, Director, High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership

Amy Gross, 9-12 Mathematics Curriculum Specialist

Project Description:

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction has revised the standards for Math I, Math II, and Math

III. These revisions were approved by the State Board of Education. The courses have been renamed as NC

Math I, NC Math II, and NC Math III. When curriculum standards are revised, each associated assessment must

also be revised to reflect alignment to the new content standards. The End of Course for NC Math I has required

minor revisions to align with the new content standards and will be administered as scheduled during the regular

testing windows. The revisions do not have an impact on the return of student scores or the inclusion of NC Math

I data in accountability and growth reports for 2016–17.

The NC Math II and NC Math III assessments, however, will require more extensive revisions. Therefore, the

2016-17 NC Math II and NC Math III assessments will be used to develop new test items for the 2017–18 NC

Math II and NC Math III assessments.

NCDPI determined that scores for NC Math II and Math III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not

be available to include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades. It is a local decision to

additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II and NC Math III.

The High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership staff met with the high school principals regarding the

NCDPI expectations for how end-of-year testing for Math II and Math III will be executed this year. Principals

requested that we consider waiving the additional teacher-made final exam this year to avoid added stress to both

teachers and students.

After researching over 15 NC school districts, it was determined that this waiver for an additional final exam

would be consistent with other districts in the region. This will result in a change from Durham Public School’s

Board of Education Policy 3200.5 that requires the student’s final grades in all courses be determined by

calculating 80% of the grade as the course average and 20% of the student’s’ final grade.

Grading would be calculated as follows:

Semester course: 50% Term 1 and 50% Term 2

Year-long course: 25% Term 1, 25% Term 2, 25% Term 3, and 25% Term 4

The High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership requests that Durham Public School’s Board of Education

waive the 2016-17 teacher-made final exam for all NC Math II and NC Math III Durham Public School

students.

In addition, procedures will be taken to reflect the “no-final exam” calculation in the PowerSchool gradebook.

Academic and Support Services Executive Summary

8

Math II and Math III NCFE Update

Dr. Alisa McLean, Assistant Superintendent of High School Teaching, Learning & Leadership

Melissa Watson, Director, High School Teaching, Learning and Leadership

Amy Gross, Mathematics Curriculum Specialist


October 6, 2016

9

NCDPI UPDATE:

• NCDPI determined that scores for NC Math II and III will not be returned to schools and therefore, will not be available to include as a minimum of 20 percent (20%) of the students’ final grades. It is a local decision to additionally administer a teacher-made final exam for NC Math II and NC III.

10

Main Points

• The high school leadership team

determined that the administration of an additional assessment would not provide any academic benefit for students.

• Administration is asking for approval to waive the 20% required final exam calculation for NC Math II and NC

Math III • This change has no fiscal implications

11

Questions

12




PRECIS

Agenda Item: Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services

Staff Liaison Present: Kristin Bell, Ed.D. Phone # (919) 560-3774

Main Points:

An overview of EC nursing services is provided to address the educational contexts

which necessitate nursing supervision or services and the structures and processes for

monitoring and supporting these services in the schools.

The administration is presenting this to the Board for information.


Individual nursing contracts with different agencies will be supported through state and

federal Exceptional Children’s Program funds.

Purpose


Reviewed by: Finance __________ Attorney __________

13

Project Title: Exceptional Children’s (EC) Nursing Services

Project Team: Dr. Kristin Bell, Executive Director of Exceptional Children’s Program

Project Description: Overview of EC Nursing Services

Due to the complexities of individual student 1:1 nursing needs as well as the Individualized

Education Program online student needs, the administration determined that Delta-T was unable

to meet the goals of the program as well as provide quality services. The administration after

consulting with Tharrington Smith has terminated the contract awarded to Delta-T. The

administration is presenting this action to the Board for information. Subsequently, the

administration has contracted with the following nursing agencies: Bayada Pediatrics, Maxim

Healthcare, and PSA Health to provide 1:1 nursing services. All contracts are under $90,000.00.

The DPS Lead Nurse consults with the student’s physician to obtain level of health/medical care

needs of students. Additionally, the DPS Lead Nurse collaborates and plans with nursing

supervisors/directors of each agency, evaluates and identifies student needs through the pre-

school assessment team, and receives transfer students (in-state or out of-state) who already have

an established need. The nursing agency develops plan care based on medical orders. Nursing

services review meetings are held at the beginning, middle, and end-of-year.

Timeline August 2016- June 2017

Impact on resources Existing EC funds will be used

Alignment to local, state or

federal policies Program is aligned to meet local, state, and federal policies

(Individualized Education Programs)

Intended outcomes Provide quality medical care to students

Board Action Information only

Communication and Next Steps Monitor and conduct beginning, middle, and end-of-year

review of services provided

Academic Services Executive Summary

14

Update on Exceptional Children’s (EC)

Nursing Services

Dr. Kristin Bell Executive Director, Exceptional Children’s Program

Academic and Student Services Work Session October 6, 2016

15

Contracts with Nursing

Agencies

• Contract with nursing agencies (Bayada Pediatrics, Maxim Healthcare, and PSA Healthcare)

• Collaborate and plan with nursing supervisors/ directors of each agency

• Support for eight DPS students • Evaluate and identify student needs through

pre-school assessment team • Receive transfer students (in-state or out-of-

state) who already have an established need 16

Fiscal Implications

• Continued allocation need for Lead Nurse and three EC nurses

• Extra duty needs for nurses and staff to be

“first-day ready”

• Individual nursing contracts include hourly

rates for services rendered (transportation and in-school time)

• Classroom materials and supplies

17

Evaluation Methods

• Quarterly classroom and student visits by Lead DPS Nurse to assess quality of services and fidelity of procedures

• Monthly EC Nurse Professional Learning

Communities (PLC) meetings • Continuous collaboration between Lead Nurse and

EC Executive Director • EC Nurses conduct MU classroom safety

assessments (share reports with principals and EC Central Services) three times per year

• Beginning, middle and end of year review meetings

with nursing agency representatives

18

Questions

19



PRECIS

Agenda Item: Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019

Staff Liaison Present: Elizabeth Cross Phone: (919) 560-2029

Laura Parrott (919) 560-2376

Main Points:

The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction requires each district to

submit a plan for serving AIG students every three years according to statute

Article 9B enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1996.

North Carolina School districts have transformed their local AIG programs and

plans to align with the NC AIG Program Standards approved by the State Board

of Education in July 2009 and revised in December 2012.

Administration presents this topic for discussion and approval.


These efforts are supported through state and local funds.

Purpose



20

Academic Services

Executive Summary

Project Title: Approval of Academically and Intellectually Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019

Project Team: Jacqueline Ellis, Assistant Superintendent, Middle School Teaching, Learning, & Leadership

Elizabeth Cross, Director of Advanced Academics

Laura Parrott, Coordinator of Advanced Academics


The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction requires each district to submit a plan every three years

according to statute Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08) enacted in 1996. Each LEA’s plan must show a

district response to each of the six NC AIG Program Standards which were approved by the State Board of

Education on July 9, 2009. The NC AIG Program Standards serve as a statewide framework and guide LEAs

to develop, coordinate, and implement thoughtful and comprehensive AIG programs. These standards reflect

Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08) and nationally-accepted best practices in gifted education.

The 2016-2019 plan has been revised to include alignment with DPS Office of Academic Services:

Teaching, Learning, and Leadership’s Instructional Framework

Bottom Line Expectations

Goals for the District

District Improvement Plan

.

Changes to previous plan include:

Lowering of composite score for Intellectually Gifted Identification from 97% to 96% composite score.

Creation of a district level AIG Review Team to look at nominated students who may have special

circumstances.

Adoption of High School Advanced Academics Lead Teachers.

Timeline Immediate Implementation through 2016-2019

Impact on resources AIG allotments, Advanced Academics budget

Alignment to local, state, or federal

policies

Alignment with state policy Article 9B (N.C.G.S. § 115C-150.5-.08

Intended Outcomes More comprehensive Advanced Academics program

Board Action Consent

Communication and Next Steps Notify DPS District and School Staff, Parents, and Community

Members

21

Academically and Intellectually

Gifted (AIG) Plan 2016-2019

Beth Cross

Director Advanced Academics

1

Laura Parrott Coordinator

Advanced Academics


22

Advanced Academics Goals

2016-2019

Communication

Diversity

Rigor/Relevance

K-2 Programming

9-12 Programming

3-8

AIG Achievement

Growth

23

1: Student Identification

Establish District Review Team Articulate Portfolio of Evidence Ensure consistency

Strengthen intentionality of K-2 programming Strengthen district-wide network of collaboration Develop and implement a standard for high school Honors courses

2: Differentiated Curriculum & Instruction

24

3: Personnel and Professional

Development

Articulate role of AIG Specialist (80/20) Continue professional development

Implement opportunities for compacted and advanced coursework, 3-12 Facilitate communication among and between teachers and schools Create opportunities for professional collaboration

4: Comprehensive Programming

within Total School Community

25

5: Partnerships

Continue current partnerships and seek additional sponsorships and opportunities.

Utilize AIG District Advisory Council.

Implement K-8 AIG Partnership Committees.

6: Program Accountability Weekly walkthroughs.

Use data to drive decisions.

5 26



PRECIS

Agenda Item: Athletic Eligibility

Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Alisa McLean Phone: (919) 560-2550

Larry McDonald (919) 560-3742

Mary Griffith (919) 560-2123

Main Points:

The North Carolina State Board of Education revised the Interscholastic Athletics Policy.

The new policy reflects a grade level change wherein students may participate in

interscholastic competition. The grade level changed from 7 – 12 to 6 – 12.

The North Carolina State Board of Education is giving LEA’s the choice to allow sixth

graders to play middle school sports, with the exception of football. If approved this change

would impact the local board policy 3505.

These changes will begin January 18, 2017. Administration is requesting that in accordance

with the North Carolina State Board of Education Policy ID Number HRS-D-001, students be

allowed to participate.


No fiscal implications exist for 6th

graders to participate in sports since programs would

not be expanded.

Purpose



27

Project Title:

Athletic Eligibility

Project Team:

Dr. Alisa McLean, High School Assistant Superintendent, Teaching, Learning & Leadership

Larry McDonald, District Athletic Director

Mary Griffith, Magnet Administrator


Topic 1: Sixth Grader Participation in Sports

The State Board of Education revised the Interscholastic Athletics Policy on Thursday, August 4,

2016. Administration is proposing that sixth graders be allowed to participate in every sport

except football as outlines in the new policy. The new policy changed the grade level wherein

students may participate in interscholastic competition from grades 7 – 12 to grades 6 – 12.

Currently, the Durham Public Schools Board Policy states in section 3505 that “students in

grades 7-12 may participate.” The new policy from the state indicates student participation will

be a local decision as to whether or not, and the degree to which, the new policy will be

implemented.

Administration is requesting the adoption of Policy HRS-D-001, “Athletic Participation State of

North Carolina”, beginning January 18, 2017. The policy coincides with the beginning of the

new semester as well as academic eligibility.

Administration is not requesting additional funding. The intent is to transition this policy into the

scope of the current athletic team composition and current team maximums.

The district Athletic Director met with middle school coaches and it was determined that

students in grade 6 should be allowed to try out for and join existing middle school athletic

teams.

Timeline Spring 2017

Impact on resources No impact. We are not requesting any change in current status


federal policies Board Policy 3505 if approved will need to updated to reflect

the change in grade level participation

Intended outcomes Students in 6th

grade and students would be allowed to

participate in state approved sports for 6th

graders

Board Action Discussion/Action

Communication and Next Steps Notify Principals, Teachers and parents of the adjustment to

BOE Policy 3505

Academic and Support Services Executive Summary

28

Athletic Eligibility

Dr. Alisa McLean, H.S. Asst. Superintendent

Larry McDonald, District Athletic Director

Mary Griffith, Magnet Coordinator


October 6, 2016

29

Topic 1: SBE Athletic Middle

Grades Policy Revision

• The new SBE policy changed the grade

level at which students may participate in

interscholastic competition from grades 7

– 12 to grades 6 – 12.

• The Administration is requesting that 6th

grade students are allowed to participate

in approved sports beginning spring

semester 2017.

• No fiscal implications.



PRECIS

Agenda Item: Pre-K Sliding Scale

Staff Liaison Present: Suzanne Cotterman Phone: (919) 287-4189

Mary Griffith (919) 560-2000

John McCain (919) 560-2000

Main Points:

The Administration is proposing a sliding scale be implemented in all DPS locally funded

preschool programs beginning in 2017-2018. At this time, the programs that are fully

funded locally are at Watts and Morehead.

The proposed sliding scale is aligned and competitive with the average childcare costs in

Durham County and at this time there are no charges associated with existing Durham

Public School Programs.


New income stream for preschool sustainability

Purpose



38

Project Title: Pre-K Sliding Scale

Project Team: Aaron Beaulieu, Suzanne Cotterman, Mary Griffith, John McCain

Project Description: Pilot for 2017-2018

In light of recent budget cuts and increased program costs, revenue generated from the Pre-K

Sliding Scale may off-set district costs and increase potential for sustaining programs.

Administration is requesting that the BOE approve the pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale for

implementation in the 2017-18 school year in locally funded Pre-K programs.

The intended outcome of this request is to provide high quality Pre-K offerings for a diverse

community, kindergarten readiness, and enhance the sustainability of current program costs.

Administration proposes the following timeline:

● Propose Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale and attain BOE approval, October 2016

● Create and adopt policies for Pre-K Sliding Scale, November -December 2016

● Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale (Watts and Morehead Montessori Elementary Schools),

August 2017

● Communicate Pre-K Sliding Scale beginning November, 2016 (magnet fair

November 5, 2016, magnet application period January 9-31, 2017 and assignment

period, March 1, 2017)

● Develop future expansion plan for Whitted Preschool Center and other preschool

programs, March-May 2017

● Evaluate Pilot Pre-K Sliding Scale implementation, modify and make any fee

adjustments, November 2017

● Communicate Pre-K Sliding Scale updates/modification, November 2017 (magnet

fair November 2017, magnet application period January 2018, and assignment period,

March 2018)

● Implement Pre-K Sliding Scale in DPS Pre-K Programs, July 2018

The implementation of the sliding scale will require:

● Verification of Eligibility: Definition of family size, frequency of eligibility

determination, proof of residency, income, etc.

Academic and Support Services

Executive Summary

39

● Management of project (receipt/processing of application, assignment processes,

income verification/documentation, family communication, collection of funds,

procedures for non-payment, district management of funds, development of online

calculator for parents, documentation/verification of income, billing, collection

hardships/payment exceptions/not enough seats, creation of application

Administration has considered alignment to local, state or federal policies including the

following:

● The Pre-School Task Force has focused on providing universal programming for

students entering DPS. Committee discussions highlighted the need for high quality

programming and that “universal programming” does not necessarily mean “free.”

● DPS Board of Education discussions and questions led staff to explore options for a

Pre-K Sliding Scale. This also coincided with the 2016 Magnet Review presented to

the BOE, May 2016. The BOE approved eight recommendations, one of which was

to consider a sliding scale for Watts and Morehead Montessori Elementary schools.

● Proposed Pre-K Sliding Scale is competitive with average childcare costs per Durham

County rates

● Proposed Pre-K Sliding Scale is aligned with 200% of national poverty rate

● There are no charges for existing Pre-K programs (Title I, NC Pre-K, EC)

Timeline Fall 2018

Impact on resources Additional revenue would be generated to cover some of the

expense of local preK


federal policies This change would only impact locally funded Pre-K school

programs

Intended outcomes Implement a sliding scale in locally funded Pre-k programs

Board Action Discussion and Action

Communication and Next Steps Develop a clear communication plan that reaches a variety of

audiences to ensure awareness

40

Pre-K Sliding Scale Adjust Cells K4 & K5

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12.50%

30,000$ 300$ 263$ 225$ 188$ 150$ 113$ 75$ 1.00% 1

35,000$ 350$ 306$ 263$ 219$ 175$ 131$ 88$ 2.00% 2

40,000$ 400$ 350$ 300$ 250$ 200$ 150$ 100$ 3.00% 3

45,000$ 450$ 394$ 338$ 281$ 225$ 169$ 113$ 4.00% 4

50,000$ 1,000$ 875$ 750$ 625$ 500$ 375$ 250$

55,000$ 1,100$ 963$ 825$ 688$ 550$ 413$ 275$

60,000$ 1,200$ 1,050$ 900$ 750$ 600$ 450$ 300$

65,000$ 1,950$ 1,706$ 1,463$ 1,219$ 975$ 731$ 488$

70,000$ 2,100$ 1,838$ 1,575$ 1,313$ 1,050$ 788$ 525$

75,000$ 2,250$ 1,969$ 1,688$ 1,406$ 1,125$ 844$ 563$

80,000$ 3,200$ 2,800$ 2,400$ 2,000$ 1,600$ 1,200$ 800$

85,000$ 3,400$ 2,975$ 2,550$ 2,125$ 1,700$ 1,275$ 850$

90,000$ 3,600$ 3,150$ 2,700$ 2,250$ 1,800$ 1,350$ 900$

95,000$ 3,800$ 3,325$ 2,850$ 2,375$ 1,900$ 1,425$ 950$

100,000$ 4,000$ 3,500$ 3,000$ 2,500$ 2,000$ 1,500$ 1,000$

105,000$ 4,200$ 3,675$ 3,150$ 2,625$ 2,100$ 1,575$ 1,050$

110,000$ 4,400$ 3,850$ 3,300$ 2,750$ 2,200$ 1,650$ 1,100$

115,000$ 4,600$ 4,025$ 3,450$ 2,875$ 2,300$ 1,725$ 1,150$

120,000$ 4,800$ 4,200$ 3,600$ 3,000$ 2,400$ 1,800$ 1,200$

125,000$ 5,000$ 4,375$ 3,750$ 3,125$ 2,500$ 1,875$ 1,250$

130,000$ 5,200$ 4,550$ 3,900$ 3,250$ 2,600$ 1,950$ 1,300$

135,000$ 5,400$ 4,725$ 4,050$ 3,375$ 2,700$ 2,025$ 1,350$

140,000$ 5,600$ 4,900$ 4,200$ 3,500$ 2,800$ 2,100$ 1,400$

145,000$ 5,800$ 5,075$ 4,350$ 3,625$ 2,900$ 2,175$ 1,450$

150,000$ 6,000$ 5,250$ 4,500$ 3,750$ 3,000$ 2,250$ 1,500$

155,000$ 6,200$ 5,425$ 4,650$ 3,875$ 3,100$ 2,325$ 1,550$

160,000$ 6,400$ 5,600$ 4,800$ 4,000$ 3,200$ 2,400$ 1,600$

165,000$ 6,600$ 5,775$ 4,950$ 4,125$ 3,300$ 2,475$ 1,650$

170,000$ 6,800$ 5,950$ 5,100$ 4,250$ 3,400$ 2,550$ 1,700$

175,000$ 7,000$ 6,125$ 5,250$ 4,375$ 3,500$ 2,625$ 1,750$

180,000$ 7,200$ 6,300$ 5,400$ 4,500$ 3,600$ 2,700$ 1,800$

Household Size

Ho

use

ho

ld In

com

e

41

Pre-K Sliding Scale

Aaron Beaulieu, Chief Financial Officer

Suzanne Cotterman, Director

Mary Griffith, Magnet Specialist

John McCain, Assistant Superintendent


October 6, 2016

42

Background

• The Pre-K Task Force explored the expansion of Pre-K offerings

• Task Force Committee discussions highlighted the need for high

quality programming and noted that “universal programming” does not necessarily mean “free”

• Current DPS Pre-K Programs include Exceptional Children, Title I and, NC Pre-K • New programming will target future Pre-K students that

demonstrate developing skills and provide additional options for diverse populations

• Watts and Morehead Montessori currently provide high quality

Montessori programs at no charge

43

Process used to Create

Pre-K Sliding Scale

• Compared proposed scale to other state scales

• Used poverty as a baseline • Considered “phase-in” of amount owed

by program participants • Consideration provided for household

size and amount of income 44

Impact on Resources

• Verification of eligibility

• Staff responsibilities

• Fiscal accountability & sustainability

• Management of project

45

Questions

47



PRECIS

Agenda Item: Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM)

Staff Liaison Present: Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman Phone: (919) 560-3874

John McCain (919) 560-3730

Tim Gibson (919) 560-3755

Main Points:

The elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures (DIMM) system provides an

analysis of the mClass and End-of-Grade assessment data over the previous three years via:

o cohort trends,

o subgroup performance,

o rapid gains schools and

o best practices.

The DIMM will assist in providing a common framework for understanding both district and

individual school performance in order to focus our improvement efforts for students in

grades Kindergarten through three.

As a part of the review, we will discuss student growth, best practices and notable trends.

Additionally, we will highlight schools exceeding expectations and identify areas of

improvement.


No fiscal implications exist at this time. This presentation is for the purposes of

information.

Purpose



48

Elementary District Improvement Monitoring Measures

GROWING THE COHORT:

Digging Deeper into K-3 Data

Dr. Stacey Wilson-Norman, Deputy Superintendent for Academic Services

John McCain, Tim Gibson, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Teaching, Learning and Leadership Director of Elementary Teaching, Learning and Leadership


49

District Improvement Monitoring

Measures (DIMM)

Elementary Monitoring Update

Selected Data Sets 1. mClass TRC Reading 2. Cohort Trends 3. Subgroup Performance 4. Rapid Gain Schools 5. Best Practices

50

Are students

growing in K-3

reading over

time?

(GROWTH)

Are students on

track and

academically

prepared?

(Benchmark

Attainment)

What do the

schools

experiencing

consistent

improvement do

differently?

How have schools performed on mClass over 3 years?

Which schools are experiencing the most success overall and with subgroups over 3 years?

What is the readiness of incoming Kindergarten students?

Who are the rapid support schools and what best practices are in place to support improvement?

Academic

Status

Subgroup

Performance

Rapid

Growth

Schools

DIMM K-8 Methodology

How are cohorts of students performing over time?

What are the patterns in the performance of cohorts?

51

mClass Reading 3D Assessment

• K-3 reading assessment tool used to inform instruction

Target Audience

• Teachers assess students 1on1 3 times per year (BOY, MOY and EOY)

Assessment Cycle

• DIBELS – assesses early literacy skills

• TRC – assesses text reading and comprehension

Assessment Components

52

Text Reading and Comprehension

Authentic Text

Student reads text

individually. Completes

follow-up tasks to examine reading and

comprehension

Follow-up Tasks

Oral Comprehension

Recalling or Retelling

Writing

Scores Range:

Four Levels

Far below proficient

Below proficient

Proficient

Above proficient

Proficiency Benchmarks

K – Level D

First – Level J

Second – Level N

Third – Level P

53

KINDERGARTEN

ENTRY DATA

54

2012-2016 Entering Kindergarten

Between years 2012 and 2014, a 14% increase was observed in student being far below the benchmark on BOY

School Year

Far Below Below Proficient Above Total Kindergartners

Percent with

mClass scores

2012-2013 45.3 4.1 44.8 5.8 2,940 91.5

2013-2014 44.7 4.5 46.0 4.0 3,140 95.2

2014-2015 59.0 3.6 33.6 3.9 2,963 93.5

2015-2016 47.0* 9.0 40.0 4.0

55

Kindergartners’ BOY mClass Proficiency

Level in 2014-2015, by School

% of students far below proficient on BOY

Schools

87%+ YE Smith Eastway

RN Harris CC Spaulding

60-76% Merrick-Moore Parkwood Eno Valley Glenn Lakewood Bethesda WG Pearson

Hope Valley Forest View EK Powe Oak Grove Fayetteville Street Little River

40-59% Burton Southwest Club Blvd Hillandale

Mangum Sandy Ridge School Creekside Spring Valley

<22% Easley Holt George Watts

Pearsontown Morehead Montessori

56

Students Entering Kindergarten: EOY mClass

Proficiency in 2014-15

At the end of kindergarten, 61.2 percent of students scored at or above proficient on the mClass assessment.

• Of kindergartners who scored far below proficient on the beginning-of-year assessment, 44.3 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.

• Of kindergartners who scored below proficient on the beginning-of-year assessment, 82.1 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.

• Of kindergartners who scored far below proficient on the beginning-of-the-year assessment, 83.8 percent scored proficient or above by the end of the year.

• Nearly all (99.0%) of kindergartners who scored above proficient in kindergarten entry scored above proficient at the end of kindergarten.

57

COHORT COMPARISONS

58

Grade 1314 1415 1516

K 66.02 60.02 64.71

1 60.22 48.70 47.42

2 62.29 55.92 51.89

3 62.31 61.01 61.10

mClass Cohort Performance 2013-2016

The cohort analysis here represents EOY performance at each grade level. The Durham Children’s Data Center conducted a correlation study and found kindergarten MOY scores were strongly related to 1st and 2nd grade EOY mClass scores.

59

Kindergarten

Eno Valley

Lakewood

Hope Valley

Fayetteville Street

First

Powe

Pearsontown

Eastway

Holt

Second

Holt

Morehead

Eno Valley

Spaulding

Trends and Patterns Across Schools

A few patterns

were highlighted

within schools. A

deeper dive will be

conducted with each principal

60

Students are growing over time

Cohort performance is

inconsistent

Kindergarten EOY data has shown

consistent positive gains

First and Second Grade

performance is inconsistent

Summary of Cohort

Performance, 2013-2016

61

Grade 3: mClass EOY, BOG and

EOG Comparison

School Year

mClass BOY

mClass EOY

Difference in BOY & EOY

BOG (GLP)

EOG Grade 3 Reading (GLP)

Difference In BOG & EOG

2013-14 55.0% 62.3% 7.3 22.6% 48.8% 26.2

2014-15 53.5% 61.0% 7.5 21.1% 45.4% 24.4

2015-16 50.5% 61.1% 10.6 23.7% 45.7% 22.0

2016-17 47.0%* - - 23.8% - -

62

CHANGE BETWEEN

BOY AND EOY ACROSS

3 YEARS

63

K-3 Benchmark Attainment,

2013-2016

School Year BOY District EOY Difference

2013-2014 55.29 62.78 7.49

2014-2015 50.78 56.28 5.50

2015-2016 47.53 56.22 8.39

* District average change over three years is 7.1

64

K-3 Benchmark Attainment EOY,

2015-2016 Performance Bands Schools Schools

0-30% Glenn

31%-50% Bethesda Burton Fayetteville Street Eno Valley Eastway Forest View Hope Valley Holt

Harris Lakewood Merrick-Moore Oak Grove Pearson Sandy Ridge Spaulding Smith

51%-70% Club Creekside Easley Hillandale Parkwood

Little River Mangum Powe Spring Valley Southwest

71% Watts

Morehead Pearsontown 65

Difference between BOY and EOY

2015-2016

20+ • Little River

• Parkwood

• Mangum

13+ • Lakewood

• Burton

• Oak Grove

• Eastway

• RN Harris

10+ • Smith

• Easley

• Southwest

• Pearson

• Hillandale

• Glenn

• Forest View

• Holt

66

School 15-16 BOY

14-15 BOY

13-14-BOY

Average BOY

15-16 EOY

14-15 EOY

13-14 EOY

Average EOY

Elementary A

33.88% 20.70% 34.22% 29.60 47.37% 40.47% 34.16% 40.0

• District change over time 7.1

• 13 schools exceeded the district average

• 4 of the 13 schools had over 15 points average change over time

• Inconsistency was observed within schools between grade levels

Elementary A - Average Change over time 10.40

Change Over Time by School

67

School Average Change

School Average Change

Lakewood Elementary 20.02 Club Boulevard Elementary 6.78

Little River Elementary 19.49 Merrick-Moore Elementary 6.20

Parkwood Elementary 17.42 Creekside Elementary 6.17

Mangum Elementary 15.48 Spring Valley Elementary 5.79

Y E Smith Elementary 12.83 Pearsontown Elementary 4.95

Eastway Elementary 11.40 Glenn Elementary 4.5

Southwest Elementary 10.77 Hope Valley Elementary 4.3

R N Harris Elementary 9.79 Burton Elementary 4.21

Oak Grove Elementary 9.69 Holt Elementary 4.04

Forest View Elementary 9.52 C C Spaulding Elementary 3.29

E K Powe Elementary 8.70 Easley Elementary 2.01

Hillandale Elementary 8.29 Bethesda Elementary 1.90

Eno Valley Elementary 8.09 Morehead Montessori 1.28

Fayetteville Street Elem 6.95 Sandy Ridge Elementary -0.61

W G Pearson Elementary 6.95 George Watts Elementary -4.20 68

SUBGROUP OUTCOMES

69

mClass and EOG Subgroup

Analysis

mClass Subgroups

EOG Subgroups

SWD

LEP

AIG

SWD

LEP

AIG

mClass and EOG Subgroup

performance composites were

analyzed to determine patterns of

performance across grade levels

and schools

70

mClass Rapid Gains Schools over 3

years

Students with Disabilities

+5 Gain Schools Bethesda,

Creekside, Easley, Eno Valley, Fayetteville

Street, Holt, Little River, Harris, Spring Valley

Limited English Proficient + 5 Gain Schools

Burton Eastway, Fayetteville Street, Holt,

Harris, Pearson, Smith, Mangum,

Parkwood

Academically Gifted

+ 5 Gain Schools

Powe, Easley, Oak

Grove, Parkwood

mClass

71

EOG Composite Rapid Gains Schools

over 3 years

Students with Disabilities

+5 Gain Schools

Bethesda, Burton, Creekside,

Hillandale, Forest View, Mangum,

Parkwood, Harris, Smith, Spring

Valley, Southwest

Limited English Proficient + 5 Gain Schools

Eastway, Eno Valley, Creekside, Hillandale, Holt,

Forest View, Fayetteville St.,

Spring Valley

Academically Gifted

+ 5 Gain Schools

EOG Composite

Burton, Eno Valley,

Lakewood, EK Powe, Pearson 72

EOG Subgroup Performance:

Ethnicity over 3 years

Subgroups by

Ethnicity

Black

Hispanic

White

EOG subgroup data was

analyzed over three years to

determine patterns and

positive changes in performance across schools

and grade levels

73

mClass Subgroup Performance:

Ethnicity, 2013-2016

Black

• Glenn

• Holt

• Morehead

• Parkwood

Hispanic

• Smith

• Mangum

• Holt

• Eastway

• Parkwood

• Fayetteville St.

White

• Holt

• Powe

• Creekside

• Easley

• Morehead

• Mangum

74

EOG Subgroup Performance

2013-2016 based on Ethnicity

Black

• Morehead

• Parkwood

• Forest View

• Bethesda

• Fayetteville. St.

• Southwest

Hispanic

• Eastway

• Eno Valley

• Parkwood

• Pearsontown

• Harris

• Spring Valley

• Burton

• Club

• Creekside

• Hillandale

• Forest View

White

• Holt

• Eno Valley

• Hope Valley

• Southwest

• Spring Valley

• Forest view

• Club Blvd

• Hillandale

75

RAPID GAIN SCHOOLS

76

Rapid Achievement Gain Schools

by Composite Subgroup

School Asian Black Hispanic EDS LEP SWD Eastway Elementary 4.7 0.6 5.5 6.2 0.9 Easley Elementary 23.3 2.2 2.4 3.8 1.2 1.1 Creekside Elementary 2.5 0.7 13.5 7.4 6.1 14.1 Forest View Elementary 7.1 13.2 11.6 5.2 17.8 Fayetteville Street Elementary 9.1 18.3 11.3 19.6 Mangum Elementary 8.4 34.4 19.1 25.1 Parkwood Elementary 1.3 17.6 10.3 13.7 3 7.3 Spring Valley Elementary 4.1 21.8 8.5 7.1 8.6

77

Data Profile:

Eastway Elementary

30

Student Enrollment 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Total Enrollment 650 611 584

Attendance 95.0 94.1 95.0

Free/Reduced Lunch 100%

Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

American Indian 2.5 0.3 0.3

Asian 0.3 0.2 0.2

Black 47.9 43.7 43.5

Hispanic 45.2 52.7 51.9

Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0

White 1.7 1.3 2.1

Two or More Races 2.5 1.8 2.1

ED 97.5 73.0 97.3

LEP 27.5 30.6 34.1

EC 11.1 8.8 10.3

AIG 7.3 3.7 1.3

Performance Composite Overall

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Preliminary

GLP/CCR 18.4/10.4 21.6/13.4 23.8/15.2

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

NotMet/-4.9 Met/-0.2 Met/-1.4

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience

% Teacher Turnover Rate

45% 19% 36% 32%

78

Data Profile:

Easley Elementary

31




Free/Reduced Lunch 30.72%



Asian 4.6 4.7 5.0

Black 20.2 19.7 17.3

Hispanic 13.9 16.5 20.1


White 59.6 57.0 53.3


ED 27.7 28.4 30.3

LEP 8.7 11.0 13.6

EC 10.8 10.6 12.0

AIG 17.7 16.3 15.1

Performance Composite Overall 2013-2014 2014-2015

2015-2016 Preliminary

GLP/CCR 63.3/55.3 63/53.8 64.6/57.7

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Met/-1.8 NotMet/-2.4 Met/+1.6

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


16% 13% 71% 21%

79

Data Profile:

Creekside Elementary

32







Asian 7.3 6.1 6.2

Black 27.5 27.5 26.3

Hispanic 26.2 27.1 26.1


White 33.9 34.4 36.6


ED 45.0 46.6 44.8

LEP 21.6 22.0 24.3

EC 8.0 7.8 8.7

AIG 16.5 15.0 13.9



GLP/CCR 60.5/52.8 62.6/52.5 65.9/58.1

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Exceeded/+2.9 Met/+0.1 Met/+1.0

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


23% 37% 40% 20%

80

Data Profile:

Forest View Elementary

33




Free/Reduced Lunch 63.11% Demographic Makeup 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016


Asian 6.1 5.4 4.6

Black 25.1 25.3 23.3

Hispanic 33.5 34.0 35.9


White 31.1 31.1 31.4


ED 61.0 63.6 61.1

LEP 25.6 26.3 30.4

EC 11.5 10.1 13.0

AIG 19.4 17.0 14.9 Performance Composite Overall

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 Preliminary

GLP/CCR 57.6/48.3 63.3/55.2 65.4/55.9

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Met/+1.5 Exceeded/+3.9 Met/+0.9

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


32% 29% 39% 23%

81

Data Profile:

Fayetteville Street Elementary

34




Free/Reduced Lunch 100%



Asian 0.4 0.0 0.0

Black 75.9 68.9 69.8

Hispanic 22.3 28.5 28.5


White 0.7 0.0 0.7


ED 95.6 67.0 97.3

LEP 14.2 21.9 22.3

EC 12.0 10.0 11.0

AIG 8.0 7.1 5.7



GLP/CCR 26.1/13.8 33.1/20.0 36.9/25.2

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Met/+1.8 Met/+0.4 Met/-1.6

Teacher Experience32

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


32% 32% 36% 16%

82

Data Profile:

Mangum Elementary

35







Asian 1.1 0.9 0.6

Black 11.1 10.1 10.1

Hispanic 7.2 6.3 4.3


White 78.3 81.3 83.1


ED 26.3 27.0 24.5

LEP 3.0 2.3 1.8

EC 14.6 13.5 14.7

AIG 15.2 15.8 21.4



GLP/CCR 74.7/63.3 74.4/66.7 84.3/76.5

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Exceeded/+3.5 NotMet/-2.2 Exceeded/+4.6

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


4% 8% 88% 8%

83

Data Profile:

Parkwood Elementary

36







Asian 3.9 3.7 4.5

Black 49.3 56.4 55.9

Hispanic 25.8 24.2 24.4


White 15.6 11.2 10.1


ED 71.8 72.4 71.7

LEP 15.4 15.4 18.5

EC 12.2 12.7 17.9

AIG 8.3 6.2 6.8



GLP/CCR 39.6/30.1 45/36.5 52.2/41.2

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Met/-0.1 Exceeded/+5.1 Exceeded/+2.8

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


40% 12% 49% 13%

84

Data Profile:

Spring Valley Elementary

37







Asian 2.1 2.5 3.0

Black 53.7 53.9 54.4

Hispanic 24.4 27.7 29.5


White 15.6 12.9 10.8


ED 63.8 63.9 62.1

LEP 12.4 14.4 18.3

EC 11.1 11.6 15.6

AIG 6.7 4.1 5.3



GLP/CCR 47.2/36.4 50.2/38.1 52.1/42.7

Growth Index 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

Met/-0.3 Met/0 NotMet/-2.8

Teacher Experience

% 0-3 Experience

% 4-10 Experience

% 10+ Experience


20% 33% 48% 19%

85

EMERGING PRACTICES

86

Best Practices Interviews and

Focus Groups

1. Rapid Support Schools will be interviewed to include administration and teachers

2. Best practices summary will be developed and shared at the next work session

3. Round Table discussions will be conducted with each principal to take a deeper dive into the date

87

Catch-up Keep-up Move-up

40

Catch-Up Growth

Keep-Up Growth

Move-Up Growth

Above Proficient

Proficient

Below Proficient

Far Below 88

Wrap up and Feedback

41

Please provide us with feedback using post-it notes at your table on this session

Things that worked well

Things that did not work well

Remaining questions

Aha moments

89

DISCUSSION

90

agenda - dpsnc.net · pdf fileiii. academically and intellectually gifted (aig) plan 2016-2019...

Documents