1 / 26

St. Louis Public Schools Getting Results

St. Louis Public Schools Getting Results. Creating the Best Choice in Urban Education. District Demographics (06-07). SLPS is a District of Choice: SLPS Students in City Magnet Schools Enrollment = 9,211 students Voluntary Transfer Into SLPS Enrollment = 391 students

siusan
Download Presentation

St. Louis Public Schools Getting Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. St. Louis Public SchoolsGetting Results Creating the Best Choice in Urban Education CCSSO 2007

  2. District Demographics (06-07) SLPS is a District of Choice: SLPS Students in City Magnet Schools Enrollment = 9,211 students Voluntary Transfer Into SLPS Enrollment = 391 students SLPS Students in County Schools Enrollment = 8,027 students St. Louis Charter Schools Enrollment =5,254 students CCSSO 2007

  3. SLPS and Student Mobility* Mobility Stability • Elementary Schools—33% • Middle Schools—35% • High Schools—77% • Elementary Schools—85% • Middle Schools—76% • High Schools—85% * 2006-2007 CCSSO 2007

  4. Distribution/Elementary • Elementary School Information: • Cluster I: Number of Schools – 20 • Number of SPT Schools – 4 • Number of Non-SPT Schools – 16 • Cluster II – 20: Number of Schools – 20 • Number of SPT Schools – 1 • Number of Non-SPT Schools – 19 • Cluster III – 15: Number of Schools – 15 • Number of SPT Schools – 11 • Number of Non-SPT Schools - 4 CCSSO 2007

  5. Distribution/Secondary • Middle Schools: Number of Schools - 17 • Number of SPT Schools - 11 • Number of Non-SPT Schools – 6 • High Schools: Number of Schools – 12 • Number of SPT Schools – 9 • Number of Non-SPT Schools – 3 CCSSO 2007

  6. School Performance Teams Improve Achievement in Low Performing Schools CCSSO 2007

  7. School Improvement Plan • District–wide data-driven format requiring: • Item analysis • Root cause analysis • Research – based promising practices • Progress monitoring of strategies and initiatives • Timelines for implementation • Alignment to district and school goals • Monitored and evaluated for effectiveness/tied to principal evaluation 4 times per yr CCSSO 2007

  8. SQR Student Achievement SPT SIP 3 -Pronged Approach for Lighthouse Schools CCSSO 2007

  9. CCSSO 2007

  10. Root Cause Analysis • First ask: Why have students not learned the skills and knowledge described in GLEs • Then ask: What gaps or inconsistencies exist in curriculum: • Implementation • Monitoring • First ask: Will correcting or eliminating this root cause result in success? • Then ask: Is this root cause important enough for us to focus time and energy in the planning process? CCSSO 2007

  11. Are any of the possible root causes enabling factors … • that is, those aspects within the school that might be negatively impacting teaching and learning; • or core factors – that is, those that are directly related to teaching and learning? • Are there any other factors related to instruction and curriculum that might affect students’ ability to master the knowledge and content? CCSSO 2007

  12. Prioritize root causes to target those that if removed would be likely to improve student achievement • Select research-based and/or promising practices to mitigate root causes • Include progress monitoring to assess effectiveness CCSSO 2007

  13. School Improvement Plan 5 “Domains”—aligned with the district CSIP: I. Communication Arts II. Math III. Attendance IV. Safe and Orderly Environment V. Parent/Community Involvement CCSSO 2007

  14. Building district capacity to meet Missouri School • Improvement Plan (MSIP) standards and accreditation • Ensuring accuracy of core data • Building capacity of schools to improve academic • performance by supporting data-driven-decision making • models • Implementing continuous school improvement planning and • accountability processes using: • Summative MAP assessment data • Diagnostic TerraNova assessment data • Formative Benchmark Assessment data every 6 weeks • Core data in School Scorecards each quarter • Achievement Gap data • Root Cause Analysis • Research-based, promising practices to mitigate root causes CCSSO 2007

  15. Elementary Data Analysis Cluster I • The SPT schools represent 20% of the total number of schools in Cluster I for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 47.8% • 100% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 177% • In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 80% of the total number of schools in Cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year--43.75% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 88.3% • 31.25% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 48.5% CCSSO 2007

  16. Elementary Data AnalysisCluster II • The SPT schools represent 5% of the total number of schools in cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year--0% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics and Communication Arts • In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 95% of the total number of schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-- 10.5% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 13.2% • 31.6% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 15.1% CCSSO 2007

  17. Elementary Data AnalysisCluster III • The SPT schools represent 73.3% of the total number of schools in Cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-- 27.3% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 42.7% • 36.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.1% • The non-SPT schools represent 26.7% of the total number of schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the non-SPT schools showed increases in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 116.6% • 50% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 150.6% CCSSO 2007

  18. Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in Mathematics CCSSO 2007

  19. Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in Communication Arts CCSSO 2007

  20. Middle School Data Analysis • The SPT schools represent 64.7% of the total number of middle schools for the 2006-2007 school year--63.6% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 91.4% • 63.6% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.4%. • the non-SPT schools represent 35.3% of the total number of middle schools for the 2006-2007 school year--16.7% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 6.1% • 0% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts CCSSO 2007

  21. Middle School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in Mathematics / Communication Arts CCSSO 2007

  22. High School Data Analysis • The SPT schools represent 75% of the total number of high schools for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 37.7% • 44.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 101.9% • The non-SPT schools represent 25% of the total number of high schools for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 4.0% • 33.3% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 86.4% CCSSO 2007

  23. High School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in Mathematics / Communication Arts CCSSO 2007

  24. (Internal) School Quality Reviews • Purpose • Promote overall culture of continuous improvement • Systemically gather and share school quality info to • inform decision making • Identify research-based long-term strategies • Process • Pre-onsite data and doc review • On-site visitation w/interviews • Draft report…refutations • Final report to inform decision making for school and • district CCSSO 2007

  25. District Interventions & Assistance RE: SIP 2005-2006 School Performance Teams 2006-2007 School Performance Teams and data-driven SIP 2007-2008 School Performance Teams in Cluster 3 schools –more intense application of model All schools: data-driven SIP with PD embedded and aligned with item/data analysis,implementation tied to principal evaluations (formal process 4 X yr) CCSSO 2007

  26. September: Administrators will review and revise SIP October: Administrator will schedule formal meeting with SIP team, supervisor , OAAI and PD staff November: Supervisor will discuss SIP adjustments resulting from October meeting and data review February: Administrator will schedule formal SIP review with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress March: Administrator will continue data review and development of next year’s SIP April: Complete review of current SIP and draft of next year’s SIP, formal review with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress May: Schedule final formal SIP review with with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress CCSSO 2007

More Related