Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DRAFT 1
DRAFT
Agenda
• Tutoring Program Review
• ECE Expansion Update
• October Board Report
• Next steps
2
DRAFT
Agenda
Tutoring Program Review• Overview of Mill Levy math tutoring
investment program
• Denver Math Fellows overview & implementation
• Flexible schools overview & implementation
• Progress monitoring during 2013-14
3
DRAFT 5
Denver Math Fellows Program
DRAFT
What is the Denver Math Fellows program?
6
DRAFT
Why expand the Denver Math Fellows program?Pilot program demonstrated strong impact in FNE
7
51 50 53.554 53
69
50 49
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
District 9th Grade(2013 N= 4352)
Non‐Tutored 9thGrade (2013 N=
3970)
Tutored 9th Grade(2013 N= 382)
9th Grade
2011
2012
2013
50 50 4752 51
79
53 52
76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
District 4th Grade(2013 N= 5934)
Non‐Tutored 4thGrade (2013 N=
5786)
Tutored 4th Grade(2013 N= 148)
4th Grade
2011
2012
2013 58 58
39
59 59 6161 61
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
District 6th Grade(2013 N= 5385)
Non‐Tutored 6thGrade (2013 N=
5282)
Tutored 6th Grade(2013 N= 103)
6th Grade
2011
2012
2013
2013 schools include: Ford Elementary, Green Valley Ranch Elementary, McGlone Elementary, DCIS Montbello MS and HS, Collegiate Prep Academy HS, High Tech Early College, Noel Community Arts High School
We launched the tutorial pilot in 2011-12, and students were first tested on TCAP in spring 2012.
DRAFT
Denver Math Fellows core components
8
• 45 minutes of daily small group tutoring in 4th, 6th and 8th grades.
• Pullout intervention that does not supplant daily mathematics instruction.
• Program utilizes “Do the Math” at 4th grade, and “Do the Math Now” and “Navigator” at 6th and 8th grades.
• Lesson sequence is standards‐based with a clear objective, “do now,” “exit ticket” and adaptive instruction based on student mastery of objectives.
• Students are assessed five times per year via the Scholastic Math Inventory (SMI).
DRAFT
Checkpoints on the way to successful implementation
9
• Roll-out program to school leaders
• Hire 313 math tutors and 22 coordinators
• Set-up tutorial environments in all schools
• Seamless launch with start of school
• Administer first SMI assessment by 9/13
• Ensure early fidelity in implementation
Jan2013
Feb-Jun2013
Jun-Aug2013
Aug2013
Sept2013
Sept-Oct2013
DRAFT 10
Flexible Tutorial Fund Schools
DRAFT
Expectations for schools with flexibility in spending tutorial funding
11
• 45 minutes of daily math support during the school day, for 4th, 6th and 8th graders who scored below proficient on prior year’s TCAP math.
• No more than 5:1 student‐to‐staff ratio.
• Intervention is a pullout that is in addition to 75 minutes of daily core mathematics instruction.
• Students should not be pulled out of any core instruction.
• Lessons are standards‐based with clear objectives based on individual students’ needs.
• Students are regularly assessed in relation to both foundational math skills and grade level content.
DRAFT
Checkpoints on the way to successful implementation
12
• Roll-out program to 66 school leaders
• Schools develop intervention plans and identify staffing needs for 13-14
• Purchase intervention materials and interim assessment programs
• Utilize TCAP data to identify students in need
• Administer first SMI (or other interim) assessment
• Ensure early fidelity in implementation
Jan2013
Feb-Jun2013
Jun-Aug2013
Aug2013
Sept2013
Sept-Oct2013
DRAFT 13
Progress Monitoring for 13-14
DRAFT
Impact goals for 2013-14 school year
14
1. TCAP Math proficiency will increase by 3.5% for tutored students.
2. Percentage of tutored students scoring a 50 MGP or greater will increase by 3.5‐5%.
3. Academic achievement gaps will decrease by 3.5‐5% for tutored students.
4. 100% of schools aligned with program parameters to ensure fidelity of implementation
Denver Math Fellow Specific1. 100% staffed and initially trained to start the year. Achieved.
2. Retain 90% of fellows throughout the entire year and develop a waitlist to backfill openings as needed.
DRAFT
How will we monitor progress during the course of the year?
15
1. Steady decreases in students testing “Below Basic” and “Basic” on each progressive SMI assessment.
2. From SMI 1 to SMI 5, see gains in numbers of students testing at or above proficient.
3. Math Fellow Development: weekly observations and coaching; monthly campus based training; weekly feedback survey by fellow and school.
DRAFT
Next Steps
• Share SMI data after the completion of SMI 1 & 2.
• Tour of elementary and middle school Denver Math Fellows program.
• Presentations from schools receiving math intervention flexible funds to discuss their intervention approaches.
16
DRAFT
Agenda
ECE Expansion Update
17
DRAFT
2012 Regional Unmet ECE Needs Analysis
18
Northwest Denver
Program Demand Supply Gap
Half‐day 235 894 ‐659
Full‐day 1,068 777 318
FDE 1,186 1,224 ‐38
Southwest Denver
Program Demand Supply Gap
Half‐day 210 474 ‐264
Full‐day 1,022 704 318
FDE 1,127 941 186
Southeast Denver
Program Demand Supply Gap
Half‐day 312 311 1
Full‐day 703 414 289
FDE 859 570 290
Near Northeast Denver
Program Demand Supply Gap
Half‐day 424 630 ‐206
Full‐day 1,512 1,266 246
FDE 1,725 1,581 144Far Northeast Denver
Program Demand Supply Gap
Half‐day 164 470 ‐306
Full‐day 868 367 501
FDE 949 602 347
DRAFT
After accounting for additional DPS ECE capacity for 2013‐14, sub‐regions SE‐C and FNE‐B still have the highest need for ECE seats.
Sub‐regions FNE‐C, SE‐A, and NW‐D have a remaining need (note: LeDoux and Escalante‐Biggs will provide support to NW‐D and FNE‐C respectively)
Impact of DPS Expansion on Regional Demand Needs
19DPS expansion site
229 FDE
200 FDE 115 FDE
106 FDE
105 FDE
68 FDE
98 FDE
DRAFT
Summary Community Process
- 20 -
Application Review
March
Based on ECE Expansion Committee recommendations
Align with CPP contract for ease of use by Providers
Application Design
Jan - Feb
3 member review panel per application
Utilize the rubric designed by ECE Expansion committee
On-site reviews for new applicants
Approval
May
Up to set number of seats for a provider
Seats approved for specific locations within a provider
Cap the total allocated seats to align with MLO funding
Contract
June
Align with CPP & DPP rules for consistency
Compensation decisions determined to align with CPP
Last fall, 3 meetings were held with ECE Community leaders to discuss the summary process for expansion, both at DPS locations as well as Community Providers. This is the output from that group.
DRAFT
Community Process Highlights
• Forty‐seven community providers applied • Requested 1,400 slots• Used Committee‐developed rubric with three readers to score
each application• Awarded 500 slots, or $1.5 million of mill levy funding, to
community based on scores and high need priority areas• DPS now contracts with 35 providers with CPP, Mill Levy and
ECARE funds for a total of $4.7M
DRAFT
Analytical Snapshot of Community Allocations
22
• To assess overall need, we primarily looked at remaining unmet need in a sub‐region.• We used the first round wait list data and ECE to Kinder ratios as a secondary measure of demand. • Using these three data points, we were able to determine the weighted points (60% weight on remaining unmet demand, 20% on
wait lists, and 20% on ECE to Kinder ratios). • If a sub‐region did not have a remaining unmet demand, the region was considered as limited needs since demand for DPS
seats would not necessarily align with community provider demand.
Sub-Region
Remaining Gap
Remaining Gap
CategoryWait List
RankNumber on Wait List
Wait List Category
4YO: Kinder Rank
# of Seats to Equity
4 YO: Kinder
CategoryWeighted
Points
Average Seats
NeededWeighted Need
CategoryFNE-B 200 4 3 128 4 2 85 4 4.0 138 HighSE-C 229 4 11 15 2 6 49 3 3.4 97 Moderately HighNNE-E 98 2 2 135 4 3 81 4 2.8 105 ModerateSE-A 106 3 13 11 2 4 54 3 2.8 57 ModerateFNE-C 115 3 23 0 0 1 45 4 2.6 53 ModerateNW-D 105 3 10 23 2 7 52 2 2.6 60 ModerateNNE-F 9 1 7 30 3 5 56 3 1.8 32 LowNNE-D 8 1 1 431 4 9 30 2 1.8 156 LowNNE-C 22 1 9 12 3 10 6 1 1.4 13 LowNNE-B 14 1 12 46 2 11 3 1 1.2 21 LowSW-D 68 2 18 2 1 12 -7 0 1.4 21 LowNW-G 18 1 14 4 2 21 -11 0 1.0 4 LowNW-E -1 0 4 39 4 8 24 2 1.2 21 LimitedFNE-A -114 0 5 266 4 16 -66 0 0.8 29 LimitedSE-B -58 0 6 60 3 20 -80 0 0.6 -26 LimitedNW-B -99 0 8 55 3 22 -59 0 0.6 -34 LimitedSW-B 8 1 15 28 1 19 -56 0 0.8 -7 LimitedSW-C 22 1 16 5 1 17 -24 0 0.8 1 LimitedNNE-A -92 0 17 46 1 13 -45 0 0.2 -30 LimitedNW-C -1 0 19 4 0 14 -24 0 0.0 -7 LimitedNW-F -46 0 20 5 0 18 -21 0 0.0 -21 LimitedNW-A -45 0 21 0 0 23 -50 0 0.0 -32 LimitedSW-A -29 0 22 8 0 15 -42 0 0.0 -21 Limited
DRAFT
Awarded ECE Scholarships96% of seats to high/excellent providers
23
Center Name Sub-Region Regional Need
Proposed Allocations
FDERating Rating Band
7 Little People Learning Center FNE-B High 10 38.3 High17 Child Care Partners University NNE-E Moderate 20 33 High1 Clayton Early Learning FNE-C Moderate 35 41 Excellent
11 Crayon Academy Learning Center NW-D Moderate 10 36 High30 Early Success Academy FNE-C Moderate 10 25 Medium1 MHM Lowry Montessori Early Learning Center NNE-E Moderate 20 41 Excellent
10 The Little Rascals Day Care FNE-C Moderate 1 37 High7 Baby Haven SW-D Low 4 38 High17 Sewall at Bird NNE-D Low 7 33 High17 Sewall Child Development Center NNE-C Low 7 33 High4 Warren Village NNE-C Low 9 40 Excellent7 Auraria Early Learning Center NW-A Limited 10 38 High4 Catholic Charities Garfield SW-A Limited 10 40 Excellent4 Catholic Charities Kentucky SW-A Limited 10 40 Excellent6 Early Excellence Program of Denver NNE-A Limited 10 39 High
12 Family Star Montessori School NW-B Limited 5 35.6 High12 Hope Center NNE-A Limited 5 35.6 High1 Little Friends Learning Center NW-F Limited 10 41 Excellent1 MHM Rude Park Montessori Early Learning Center NW-C Limited 5 41 Excellent1 MHM Sun Valley Montessori Early Learning Center NW-C Limited 5 41 Excellent1 MHM Westwood Montessori Early Learning Center SW-A Limited 10 41 Excellent
12 Monarch Montessori FNE-A Limited 15 35 High37 Pioneer Charter School NNE-A Limited 1 20 Medium17 Sewall at CEE SE-B Limited 7 33 High17 Sewall at Doull SW-B Limited 7 33 High17 Sewall at Smedley NW-F Limited 7 33 High
DRAFT
Future Considerations
• Monitor enrollment levels at both DPS and community sites to ensure mill levy awards are being fully utilized
• Reassess highest needs sub‐regions for further expansion through both DPS facilities as well as engaging with community providers to encourage their expansion into these regions, potentially including funding support
• Implement ECE program accountability to tie quality ratings to student outcomes in kindergarten and beyond
24