Report on Academic Progress

October 11, 2011

MPS Strategic Plan focuses on increasing curricular rigor, strengthening school leadership and teaching effectiveness, and intervening in the lowest performing schools
Every Child College Ready
Raise Expectations & Rigor Address Lowest 25% & Launch New Schools

Vision

Core Strategies

Transform School Leadership

Strengthen Teaching

Foundation

Fix policies and practices that enable racial inequality Increase accountability Deepen parent/family relationships Build external and internal community support

Create sustainable finances

In 2010-11, MPS focused in particular on 4 project goals

Every Child College Ready 2010-11 BoardSuperintendent Project Goals

Vision

Core Strategies

Raise Expectations & Rigor

Transform School Leadership

Strengthen Teaching

Address Lowest 25% & Launch New Schools

Focused Instruction system

Foundation

Fix policies and practices that enable racial inequality Increase accountability Deepen parent/family relationships Build external and internal community support Accountability system

I n f o r m a t i o n

m g m t .

Create sustainable finances

Long-range financial plan and stronger budget process

3

In August 2010 the Board approved revised performance goals. Today we will review 2011 results on these goals.
Goals 1. Prepare more students for Kindergarten 2. Increase elementary and middle school students on track and prepared for success in high school 3. Increase student achievement across all grades and close gap to state average 4. Reduce achievement gap by increasing achievement of students of color 5. Prepare more students for college/post-secondary education 6. Increase student engagement 7. Increase student and family satisfaction 8. Increase financial sustainability through restructuring and revenue generation (appendix)
4

Every child college & career ready

1. Prepare more students for kindergarten

Met target: more MPS High 5 students ready for K

Kindergarten readiness
MPS

100% 90% 80% 2015 target: 87% 2011 target: 75%

70%
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

68%

69%

72%

75%

0%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2. Increase elementary and middle school students on track and prepared for success in high school

3rd grade Reading

Closed gap to state by one point
MPS 100%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 78%
20

State
2015 target gap 10 18

76%
22

79%
21

2011 target gap

58%

54%

58%

20%
10% 0% 2009 2010 2011
6

6th grade ELL on track in Reading

Declining percentage of ELL Grade 6 Students Proficient or Advanced on MCAII Reading after 7 years of MPS Enrollment
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2015 target: 55% 2011 target: 43%

43%

40%

39%

Gr 6 2009

Gr 6 2010

Gr 6 2011

3rd grade Math

Gap to state widened on new MCAIII test
MPS
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19

State
2015 target gap 11 2011 target gap 19

79%

81%
20

70%
21

60%

61%
49%

2009

2010

2011
8

8th graders on track in Math

Surpassed 2015 goal for 8th graders passing Linear Algebra
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
2015 target: 80% MPS changed the middle school math curriculum so all 8th graders would take Algebra in 201011, to meet new state law, prepare students to meet higher state standards in MCAIII, and to increase readiness for high school mathematics. Note only 35% scored proficient or above on 2011 MCAIII

82%
2011 target: 62%

31%

2010

2011

3. Increase student achievement across all grades and close gap to state average

After incremental gains, 4 point improvement in 2011 and narrowed gap to state by 1 point
MPS
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 68%
20

Reading All grades

State

2015 target gap 10 2011 target gap 18

71%
22

72%
21

72%
20

75%
19

48%

49%

51%

52%

56%

30% 20% 10%

0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
10

Math All grades

Three years incremental improvement on MCAII; performance on new MCAIII declines less than states
MPS
100% 90%

State
2015 target gap 11 2011 target gap 19

80%
70% 60%

59%
19

60%
19

62%
19

65% 56%
20

50%
40% 30%

19

40%

41%

43%

45% 37%

20%
10% 0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011
11

Math 11th grade

Over last 2 years, 11 point gain on 11th grade MCAII, closing gap to state by 3 points
MPS
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15

State

41%

49% 43%
13 12

26%

30%

37%

2009

2010

2011
12

Science All grades tested*

MPS and state results flat in 2011
MPS
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

State
2015 target gap 9 2011 target gap 16

40%
17

46%
19

48%
19

48%
19

23%

27%

29%

29%

2008

2009

2010

2011
13

*Only students in grades 5, 8 and high school (9 or 10) take the MCAII Science exam

4. Reduce achievement gap by increasing achievement of students of color

Reading - Students of Color

36 point gap last year; gap to overall state average reduced 2 points
MPS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
34 37 37

State

68%

71%

72%

72%

75%

2015 target gap 19 2011 target gap 33

36

34

34%

34%

35%

36%

41%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011
14

Reading Students of Color Groups

Large increase in % of MPS African American students proficient or advanced
100% 90% 80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% African American Change +6 points Hispanic +5 points Asian +5 points American Indian +3 points Caucasian +0 points
15

2010

2011
86% 86%

49% 33% 39% 36% 41%

54%

37% 40%

Reading Home Language

Large gain in % of student from Somali-speaking homes achieving Reading proficiency
100% 90% 80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Somali Spanish Hmong English
16

2009

2010

2011

58% 59% 41% 30% 31% 36% 39% 34%

63%

32% 31%

36%

Math - Students of Color

Despite MCAIII decline, gap to state reversing direction
MPS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26% 27% 28%
33 2015 target gap 24 2011 target gap 33

State

59%

60%
33

62%
34

65% 56%
35

34

30% 22%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011
17

Special Ed disproportionality
Students of color remain 42% more likely to receive SpEd services; African American students have highest risk ratio
Student of color Special Education risk ratio 1.52
2011 target: 1.38 2015 target: 1.23

Special Ed risk ratio by group 2011

1.41

1.42

1.29 0.95 0.70

0.54

2010

2011
National average

African American Hispanic Caucasian American Indian

Asian

Source: MPS; IDEA 2007

1.5

1.5

.9

.9

.5

18

5. Prepare more students for college/post-secondary education

Predicted college readiness

Decline in percentage of 10th Graders Scoring 17 or higher on ACT/PLAN*
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%
2015 target: 58% 2011 target: 46%

30%
20% 10% 0%

36%

40%

43%

40%

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Fall 2010
19

*A score of 17 or higher on ACT PLAN is correlated with a college-ready score of 21 on the actual ACT; for district accountability purposes, MPS tracks ACT PLAN since nearly all students take it whereas only ~60% of students take the ACT itself.

Advanced course taking

Exceeded two targets in 2011
% students passing at least one AP, IB or CIS course % AP and IB students earning crediteligible score on subject tests* 2015 target: 57%

2015 target: 55% 2011 target: 39% 50%

35%

38%

42%

2011 target: 45%

2010

2011

2010

2011

% of CTE students taking at least 1 advanced CTE course 2015 target: 62% 63% 2011 target: 46%

34%
2009 *3 on AP; 4 on IB subject tests

42%

2010

2011 20

AYP High School Graduation Rate

Grad rate up 5 points; exceeds target
100% 90%
2015 target: 85% 2011 target: 75%

80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 76%

73%

78%

30%
20% 10% 0% 2009 (SY 2007-08) 2010 (SY 2008-09) 2011 (SY 2009-10)
21 Note: 2011 AYP rate excludes turnaround schools Edison, Wellstone and Broadway; however the 4-year graduation rate that still includes them increased by 4.7 points. Note each of the big 7 high schools made its AYP graduation criteria except North (threshold of 85% graduation rate or 2 percentage point increase from prior year. Note: AYP graduation rate reporting by the state lags actual school years by approximately one year

6. Increase student engagement

Student participation
Low attendance is a persistent, critical issue; suspensions flat
% students attending at least 95% of days*
2015 target: 70% 2011 target: 61%

% students suspended once or more

59%

59%

59%

10%

9%

9%
2011 target: 8% 2015 target: 4%

2009

2010

2011

2009

2010

2011

*Among students who attended at least 95 days (1/2 of year)

22

7. Increase student and family satisfaction

Family satisfaction
Family satisfaction strong, but need to increase survey participation; enrollment growing faster than projected
% Families whose school meets or exceeds expectations
2015 target: 89% 2011 target: 81%

Enrollment

33,855

33,584

79% 76%

80%

33,420
2011 target: 33,257

2009
Survey participation rate:

2010
24%

2011
23%

2009

2010

2011

23%

*Approximately 5,500 surveys completed per year

23

School-level performance overview

10/6/2011

24

We Measure Each Schools Performance Based on 2 Factors

1. Proficiency: an absolute measure of proficiency using the MCA-II test results for the most recent school year.* Value-Added: a relative measure of proficiency that controls for factors beyond the schools control (such as poverty). Value-Added is based on three years of data.
Weighting: to assure schools are given credit for growth and are compared on a level playing field, rankings are combined using 1/3 proficiency and 2/3 Valued-Added. Math and reading scores are equally weighted.

2.

Note: We rate performance and tier schools into 4 quartiles using proficiency and value-added. We determine the right intervention strategies using the grid, qualitative information from the Cambridge School Quality Reviews and other factors.*
For a primer on value-added, see: Oak tree at our partner VARCs website: http://varc.wceruw.org/tutorials * Lake Harriet Lower and Lake Nokomis Wenonah ranking based upon value-added calculated using alternate data for the grades they serve (e.g., beginning and end of kindergarten assessments), not MCA proficiency. **Cityview and Broadway did not have new SQRs in 2011; rating provided by Academic leadership instead

25

School Performance and Interventions

Performance (2011 proficiency and 3-year average value-added)
School Quality Reviews
Exceeds or meets expectations with some needs High Priority Schools Middle 50% High Performers Alphabetically

School Quality Review 201011

No formal interventions
Meets expectations w/some areas requiring support

Some additional support Major Interventions: Internal/external support Transformation Turnaround Restart Leadership Change Program Replacement or Closure Significant support/ interventions

Requires support in several areas

Does not meet expectations

26

MPS School Portfolio Performance

Performance (2011 proficiency and 3-year average value-added)
High Priority Schools (25%) Exceeds expectations Meets expectations Kenwood Lake Harriet Lower
Lake Harriet Upper

Middle 50%

High Performers (25%) Alphabetically

School Quality Review2011

Meets expectations in most key areas but requires continued monitoring and support

Anishinabe (-) Pratt (-) Wellstone

Bryn Mawr (-) Edison (+) Northeast (-) Roosevelt (+) Sanford

Armatage (-) Lake Nok.-Wenonah Loring (-) Kenny (-) Pillsbury Seward South Waite Park Windom Jefferson Northrop (-) Washburn (+)

Anthony Barton Burroughs Dowling Hale Lake NokomisKeewaydin (+) Lyndale Whittier Southwest Emerson (++) Field (+) Henry-2011 tbd Nellie Stone Johnson(+)

Does not meet expectations in many key areas and requires additional support

Bancroft (-) Green Central (-) Hall Hmong Intl. Academy Olson Sheridan Bethune Broadway Cityview Ramsey North

Andersen Anwatin (-) Hiawatha Jenny Lind (-) Lucy Laney (+) Marcy Sullivan (+)

Does not meet expectations and requires significant support

(+) or (-) indicates a school moved up or down a quartile since 2010 27

Note: Friendship Academy and Cyber Village Academy do not have value-added data. Using proficiency only, both would be top 25% (FAFA n=34).

MPS Contract Alternative Schools

School Quality Reviews only*
Quality School Reviews 2008-2009 Exceeds expectations Meets expectations Loring Nicollet (2011) MERC (2011) American Indian OIC (2011) Center School (2009) Heritage (2009) Plymouth Youth Center (2009) VOA Phoenix (2011) Urban League High School (2009) VOA SALT High School (2011) Performance

Meets expectations in most key areas but requires continued monitoring and support

Does not meet expectations in many key areas and requires additional support Does not meet expectations and requires significant support

City Inc. (2009) Urban League Elementary (2009) Menlo Park (2009)
28

*Most contract alternative schools too small for calculating value-added; most also have very small n on state tests.

Top 25% Performers

Many MPS schools out-performed the state average for proficiency
% of students proficient in Reading - 2011
94% 89%89%87% 85% 81%80% 76%75% 63% 57% 54%53%52% 42%

% of students proficient in Math 2011

80% 78% 78% 69% 64% 63% 58% 57% 56% 42% 42% 41% 40% 32% 19%

Note: some top 25% schools are below the state average for proficiency but achieved top 25% performance due to their superior valued-added

29

High Priority Schools

MPS lowest performing schools far under-perform the state average
% of students proficient in Reading - 2011
75% 66% 43%

% of students proficient in Math 2011

56%

37% 25% 27% 28% 30%30% 32%32%

40% 41% 42% 19%19% 20% 20%

17% 14%14%14% 11% 7% 8%

17%

0%

0% 0%

30

Major Interventions for High Priority Schools

I n t e r n a l S u p p o r t

Description
Skill Building for Principals ILT Teams

Principal professional development on effective classroom observation and teacher coaching, curriculum maps and data analysis Provide data-informed academic planning

Intensive External Support

Provide external support Monthly visits to develop action plan directly linked to School Quality Review outcomes Direct, one-on-one work with principals and school leadership teams

R e s t r u c t u r i n g

Transformational Model

Launch program, leadership and staffing changes and extended day, supported by Federal School Improvement Grant Provide new leadership to accelerate improvement and reform efforts
Provide a new leadership team, staff and school focus and culture Used only occasionally due to disruption across the district Replace with MPS-sponsored self-governed, contract or charter school or internally-designed new school model (e.g., North redesign)
31

Turnaround Model

Restart Model

School Closure Model

Interventions underway at 2011 and 2012 High Priority Schools

Close
Close program

Intensive Internal/ External Support Hall *

support through NAZ; partnership with Harvest Prep

Turnaround (School Improvement Grant ) Bethune Broadway Edison

Internal Restructuring

Under Review

Cityview
close K-5, phase out middle school

Ramsey *
magnet strengthening work

Friendship Academy
Renewal process in fall 2011

Sheridan*
enhanced magnet support

Emerson *
immersion magnet work

Green *
support from Dr. Virginia Rojas

Hmong International Academy

Lucy Craft Laney Wellstone

Roosevelt *
new leadership team for 2011-12

Sullivan * Olson * Anishinabe * Pratt * Bancroft *

North *
Redesign work supported by Institute for Student Achievement

* Academic Reform Specialist and Instructional Leadership Team to provide support

32

Supports Needed for All of Our Schools

NEW: Zone-based instructional leadership teams
Associate Superintendents and Instructional Team Leaders and specialists in each zone support individual schools with data analysis and intervention strategies Improve how we attract, retain, evaluate and develop strong, cohesive and stable teacher teams at every school

Flexible Staffing

Teacher Evaluation

Implement rigorous evaluation process, using multiple measures Certify principals using external evaluators to assure fair, effective observations of classroom learning and teacher practice Increase staff and student hours for instruction and planning Focus district mandates/initiatives at site level and reduce teacher commitment time to these to increase teacher planning time Develop school turnaround expertise within MPS principal corps and/or recruit principals with turnaround experience for High Priority schools Strengthen principal professional development and principal coaching and evaluation Develop principal/teacher leadership incubator
33

Extended Time

Strong School Leadership

What You Can Do to Support Good Teaching & Learning Keep us on track with priorities of implementing focused instruction, teacher evaluation, and a renewed community-wide focus on student attendance Reinforce our top priorities in conversation with fellow decision-makers in the community Stay focused on the long-range, foundational work we have begun Recruit & retain highly qualified teachers in schools with the highest need
34

Appendix

Data for other scorecard measures 2011 AYP pipeline Additional subgroup information data

10/6/2011

35

8. Increase financial sustainability through restructuring and revenue generation

Non-academic District Scorecard Metrics

Financial Sustainability District scorecard metrics
MPS Bond rating (on G.O. bonds)

2009-10
AA

Target
AA

2010-11
AA

Fund balance meets or exceeds Board target level (minimum level 8%)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unqualified audit opinion

Yes

Yes

Yes

Operating and administrative cost per student

$1,758

n/a

Avail. 10/30

36

2011 AYP status of MPS schools

(not including contract alternatives)
Watch
Bethune Hmong International Academy Lucy Craft Laney Edison Broadway Wellstone

2011 AYP distribution

1.1 School Choice

6 16

1
Pratt

2.1 SES

9
3.1 Corrective Action

Marcy Kenny Seward

Hall Nellie Stone Waite Park

Loring Northrop Whittier

9
0 1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1

4.1 Prep for Restructuring

Bancroft Jenny Lind Pillsbury

Bryn Mawr Lyndale Washburn

Hiawatha South Sanford

5.1 Restructuring

Andersen Northeast Windom Olson

Cityview Roosevelt Emerson Henry

Green Sheridan Anishinabe Ramsey

Jefferson Sullivan North Lk Nokomis-Keewaydin

37

Reading groups
ELL students proficiency rate increased as much as non-ELL students proficiency rate
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
63% 58%59% 62% 57%57% 39% 35% 34% 18%20% 15%

2009

2010

2011

87%

77%79%

50%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ELL Non-ELL Special Ed Non-Special Ed Free/Reduced Non-F/R Lunch Lunch
29% 25%25%

38

Math groups
Special Education students and non-F/R lunch students decreased less than state and MPS average on MCAII & new MCAIII math exam
100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
72% 68% 68% 49%51% 43% 26% 23% 17% 50% 47% 41% 29% 26% 20%

2009

2010

2011

50%
40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ELL

16% 13% 12%

Non-ELL

Special Ed

Non-Special Ed Free/Reduced Non-F/R Lunch Lunch

39

Math Home Language

100% 90% 80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Somali
10/6/2011

2009

2010

2011

49% 51% 28% 29% 18% 20% 33%

37%
29%

43%

21% 24%

Spanish

Hmong

English
40