AARON FREEDEDUC 840

OCTOBER, 2014

PRESENTATION TO THE ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOLS SCHOOL BOARD

SPRING

School District Restructuring PlanImproving Learning for all

You the School Board will

Understand what is meant by “restructuring”Understand our greatest needsUnderstand our current programmingSee what is working now, and what is notBe given an outline of proposed changes to

programming

What is Restructuring?

A fundamental shift in the way we spend and distribute resources(1)

Changes in schedule, curriculum, student groupings

In general – any large scale change that will impact most schools, students, staff and programs

1 – Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997)

Our Goals of Restructuring

Increase access to high quality instruction, including technology usage, for highest need students

Increase job-embedded professional development for core-content teachers and TOPS staff

Increase connection between regular classroom instruction and targeted services for highest need students

Rationale for Restructuring

State mandated test scores show a wide difference in achievement between our elementary schools, as well as student groups within these schools

*(Appendix A for Math Data, Appendix B for Reading Data)

Despite this, all are receiving generally the same resources – including general education staff, interventionists, targeted services programming, and technology

If we want to raise achievement and close gaps we need to be more intentional about strategically allocating resources to our highest needs

Our Greatest Needs

Low achieving, underserved elementary students Determined by a history of low test scores and targeted

services involvementHigh race-based disparity for Hispanic students*

Schools that have not had targeted services in place by MEA break for the past three years

All three needs exist at: Little Canada, Central Park, and Edgerton Elementaries

*Reference: Roseville Area Schools Achievement Vision Card

Reallocate TOPS and PD Restructure Intervention Staff

Take what has worked at successful schools to those in need

Restructure site based leadership functions to a small district level cohort

Reallocate PD funds

Replace PBIS portions of Title 1/PBIS coordinator position with Targeted Services coordinator role

Change role of Technology integration coordinator to focus on student technology

Proposed Steps for Restructuring

Current School Year Targeted Services (TOPS) Model

Students are selected by test data – math, reading or both

Principal or site leader determine what staff is available to teach

Generally 2 to 4 grades are offeredSome sites offer multiple sessions, some only

offer one (sessions run 6-8 weeks)Continued learning plan is created for each

student

(TOPS) Model at our Successful Schools

Coordinator is either a non-classroom teacher with additional time to plan programs and recruit staff, or a classroom teacher who regularly has PD time for TOPS planning

Student groups are much smaller due to general higher achievement meaning less students need services

Technology is used more regularly to assess and report, creating a greater connection between classroom teacher and TOPS staff

TOPS staff is often classroom teachers

Current Professional Development

Offers multiple times each year for grade/content alike teachers to review student data

Offers multiple times each year for all staff to review intervention data and progress towards school improvement plans

Does not offer time for targeted services staff to connect with classroom teachers

Does not offer much time for technology instruction tools to be explored and implemented (though many teachers are figuring this out on their own time)

Title 1/PBISTechnology Intergrationist

Monitors Title 1 implementation at all buildings

Monitors PBIS at 6 elementary buildings (those who have implemented it)

Teaches Title 1 at one building

Works with math and science coordinators to add technology to these areas

Most connection to middle school 1 to 1 iPad implementation

Creates shared Google forms used by all PLC groups, as well as general technology assistance for staff

Current Intervention Staff Roles

PD and TOPs Intervention Staff

Time for common teachers to work together

Coordinators who have time/resources

Small groups for TOPS

Continued Learning Plans

1 person to monitor Title 1

Connection between technology and core content

Assistance for general staff with technology

What do we need to keep and utilize from the current models?

PD and TOPS Intervention Staff

1 - Restructure site based leadership functions to a small district level cohort of three multi-site leaders

2 - Led by TOPS coordinator (replacement for PBIS coordinator)

3- Reallocate PD funds for TOPS to have a greater connection to general classroom material

1- Replace PBIS portion of coordinator role with TOPS portion

2 -Technology coordinator changes focus from math and science to general elementary technology focus

Proposed Restructuring

1 -Leadership 2 – TOPS coordinator

Change from disconnected plans to a team who facilitates changes, review previous plans, data and problems* prior to new TOPS year starts

All eight sites will now be coordinated by three site leaders – chosen from the highest performing schools, each leader will take one of the underserved schools

Coordinators will meet regularly until TOPS begins to create a functional plan for all sites

They will work with principals to recruit staff in ways that have worked at successful sites

*Sergiovanni, 2004

PBIS portion of coordinator role will be replaced by TOPS coordinator role

PBIS has been implemented in all buildings for at least three years – a leader for each building can now be found within

Funding for this position will come from state targeted services funds saved from only have 3 site leaders

TOPS Restructuring Steps

3 – PD funds Overall benefits

With the change in school improvement plans – meeting the needs of our highest need students must be a focus

Take funds currently used for PBIS planning beyond what is supplied through PBIS support to offer summer week long elementary technology implementation cohort for TOPS site leaders and coordinator

Staff development is selected that is relevant to improving learning for at-risk students*

*Minnesota Department of Education - State Approved Alternative Resource Guide (2014)

More cohesive programming, especially at low achieving schools

Removed site-based decision making problems including rationalizing, invulnerability and groupthink*

Greater connection to core content in TOPS

Greater utilization of technology for assessment as part of TOPS

*Lunenberg & Ornstein (2012)

TOPS restructure (continued)

TOPS Restructure Timeline

June assign TOPS site leaders, assign 3 school sites for each leader

August Initial planning meeting for coordinator and site leaders to discuss

program outlines, based around previous success Training for improved use of technology in progress monitoring

alongside technology integrationist Back to school week – begin recruiting TOPS teaching staff

September One day district wide training of TOPS staff on progress monitoring

October TOPS begins no later than MEA break. First three week

Technology Integrationist visits each site to monitor technology usage

Replace PBISTechnology Coordinator Change

1 – PBIS has been successfully implemented in most buildings, district level leadership no longer necessary

2- This person will now fulfill leadership of TOPS, keeping all sites aligned with successful school models

3 – Will work closely with technology coordinator for greater utilization of technology in TOPS program

1- Replace major focus of this position from math/science at all levels to a focus on progress monitoring for math and reading at elementary level

2 – Change of role to work closely with school leaders to spending more time directly with teachers in most struggling schools

Intervention Staff Restructuring

Focus of TOPS work Focus of Coordination

Integrate core curriculum more directly into TOPS

Collect progress monitoring and share with classroom teachers

1.Challenging and cohesive  learning environment*

2.Coherent instructional  program*

3.Professional community of  teachers*

4.Emphasis on improvement*

*(Marzano, 2004)

TOPS Coordinator

Plan technology Plan with the team

TOPS staff often does not have the time to plan new technology implementation – this role can help accomplish that

Role will change culture of additional programming being an essential part of instruction through rational planning model* meaning we will analyze all sites, not assuming those failing have no benefits in place

*Marion & Gonzalez (2014)

Technology Integrationist

Intervention Staff Restructure Timeline

May of this school year inform these two staff members of the planned change, post positions if change in staff is needed

June TOPS coordinator will assign TOPS site leaders, assign 3 school sites for each leader

June /July Technology Integrationist receives TIES* training focused on NCR Educational Laboratory

findings** August

Initial planning meeting for coordinator and site leaders to discuss program outlines, based around previous success

Technology integrationist trains TOPS site leaders for improved use of technology in progress monitoring

Back to school week – begin recruiting TOPS teaching staff September

One day district wide training of TOPS staff on led by TOPS coordinator and technology integrationist on progress monitoring

October TOPS begins no later than MEA break. First three week Technology Integrationist visits each site

to monitor technology usage

* TIES, 2014**North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 2004

TOPS budget

Students enrolled in targeted services programming generate general education revenue beyond 1.0 ADM (average daily membership) under Minnesota Statutes, section 126C.05 (subdivision 15)*

LEP money is available to provide programs designed to serve ESL students. (which we currently utilize)

A school district's extended time revenue may be used for extended day programs, extended week programs, summer school, and other programming authorized under the learning year program. **

*MN Department of Education – State Approved Alternative Programs Resource Guide **Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota - 2014 Minnesota Statutes

TOPS/Intervention Staff Restructure Budget

No additional funding needed nowChanges in funding streams

Professional Development funds currently used for additional PBIS support now used for summer technology cohort of TOPS site leaders

State provided TOPS funds currently used to have a site leader at every school can be used to provide additional planning time for new “multi-site” leaders and TOPS coordinator

Technology integration funds currently used for middle school 1 to 1 iPad implementation training now used for training to technology integrationist to support elementary

No additional funding needed nowFuture funding needs:

Continued student technology training for all staff, including TOPS, can be accomplished with restructure of professional development funds, or summer school planning time

Appendix A: Math

Most Recent Data:

Brimhall: 72%

Central Park: 31%

Edgerton: 43%

Williams: 64%

Data Retrieved from: Minnesota Department of Educationhttp://w20.education.state.mn.us/MDEAnalytics/Data.jsp

Appendix A, continued

Most Recent Data:

Falcon Heights: 76%

Little Canada: 46%

Harambee: 47%

Parkview: 73%

Appendix B: Reading

Most Recent Data:

Brimhall: 66%

Central Park: 35%

Edgerton: 48%

Williams: 65%

Appendix B, continued

Most Recent Data:

Falcon Heights: 79%

Little Canada: 44%

Harambee: 48%

Parkview: 74%

References

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (2012). Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Marion, R. & Gonzales, L. D. (2014). Leadership is education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Long Grove, Il: Waverland Press, Inc.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the reallocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools (CPRE Research Report No. RR-38). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education

Minnesota Department of Education (2014). State-approved alternative programs resource guide. Retrieved from: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/EnrollChoice/AlterLearn/

*Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. (2014). 2014 Minnesota statutes. Retrieved from: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=126C.10

Roseville Area Schools. (2014) Roseville Area Schools Achievement VisionCard Monitoring Report. Retrieved from: http://www.isd623.org/sites/isd623.org/files/ADMINMonitoringReportA.pdf

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sweet, J. R., Rasher, S. P., Abromitis, B. S., Johnson, E. M., & North Central Regional Educational Lab., N. I. (2004). Case Studies of High Performing, High Technology Schools. Final Research Report on Schools with Predominantly Low-Income, African-American, or Latino Student Populations. Learning Point Associates / North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL)

TIES. (2014). Tests and assessments. Retrieved from: http://ties.k12.mn.us/what-we-do/school-management/instructional-software/tests-and-assessments.