MPS strategic plan
description
Transcript of MPS strategic plan
Formally recommit to our vision of Every Child College and Career Ready
Set big, bold new targets for accelerating student achievement over the next 6 years
Establish a framework for achieving success with a new Theory of Action, long term Goals, and a revised District Scorecard
Why we’re here tonight
2
* Development of supporting
District Management
Plan / FY15 District Action
Plan
*Implementation
* Progress monitoring and
reporting
FALL 2014 and beyond
* Adjustments made to plan
based on stakeholder
feedback
* Acceleration 2020 presented
to Board for approval
SUMMER 2014:
* Draft ‘strategic plan’ presented
to Board and community for
feedback
SPRING 2014:
* Draft ‘strategic plan’ developed
by planning team
WINTER 2014:
*Learning from past practice
*Review of MPS progress and
results
* Community ‘listening
campaign’
SUMMER / FALL 2013:
3
How we got here
TONIGHT’S VOTE
By the numbers: • 17 Listening Sessions
with 500+ stakeholders • All staff survey (400+
responses) and parent/family survey (1,500+ responses)
By the numbers: • 15 listening sessions
with 400+ stakeholders
• 350+ survey responses providing reactions to the draft plan
5-Year District Management Plan (strategies, projects, timelines)
Annual District Action Plan Budget
Today’s Vote
In process – preview provided
Plan components
Mission
Vision
Values
Theory of Action
Goals w/ Performance Measures & Annual Targets
4
How this plan is different
Schools as the unit of
change
Focus
Alignment incl. clear roles, cross-cutting strategies
Faster pace
Structures for strong implementation
5
6
Mission
Vision
Values
Theory of Action
Goals w/ Performance Measures & Annual Targets
Preview: key management plan details
PREVIEW TODAY: 1) Academic Initiatives 2) Autonomy 3) Student Based
Allocation 4) Integration
District Management Plan (strategies to accomplish each goal)
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: School Autonomy
School Autonomy:
Rooted in the 2020 Theory of Action (‘Schools as the Unit of Change’), we believe student outcomes will improve if schools…
have a greater sense of ownership of their choices have the flexibility to meet the needs of their specific
population there is space to innovate
Balanced with clear accountability structures Autonomies in four areas: curriculum, budget, time,
staffing
13
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: School Autonomy (cont.)
2014-15:
RFP Process to select pilot Community Partnership Schools (1-5 sites)
2015-16:
Inaugural Community Partnership Schools use autonomies to improve student achievement
2016-17:
• Use lessons learned from first round of Community Partnership Schools to develop autonomy opportunities for all schools
• Develop process for additional schools to be granted specific autonomies
With strong accountability
14
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Student Based Allocation
Implementation of SBA supports the
2020 Theory of Action
15
Increased equity
Enhanced transparency
Increased differentiation based on need
Greater predictability
Improved alignment with district strategy
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Student Based Allocation (cont.)
Model Under
Development
Soft Landing Measures
+ Principal/AP
and Secretary
School’s Projected
Enrollment
Base Funding Factor X +
School’s Projected
Enrollment
Respective Weights + X
School Budget 16
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Student Based Allocation (cont.)
17
FY 15
Mock Budget Year
• Continue designing model
• Mock budget (Fall) to five volunteer schools
• Facilitator training through PR firm -central office and school level (Aug & Sept)
• Create Site Council Management Policy
FY 16
Pilot Year
• Revise model, if needed
• Per pupil budget allocated to pilot schools (Spring 2015)
FY 17
Implementation Year
• Per pupil budget allocated to all schools (Spring 2016)
• Community engagement (beginning Sept 2014) • Realignment of Central Office (beginning Sept 2014)
• Principal engagement and training (beginning Oct 2014)
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Student Based Allocation (cont.)
Community Engagement Schedule – First Three Months
18
September
• Area A – 10th
• Area B- 11th
• Area C- 17th
• Latino Advisory- 15th
• Hmong Parents- 17th
• Afr Amer- 25th
• Phillips Indian Educators (PIE)- 25th
October
• SEAC- 2nd
• Somali Advisory-10th
• Laotian leaders- 14th
• Afr Amer Parents Advisory- 14th
• DPAC- 20th
• Afr Amer leaders- 23rd
• Latino Parent Council
• Native Parent Council-25th
• Site Council & PTA meetings in Areas A, B & C
• Latino Collaborative
November
• SEAC- 6th
• Area A-12th
• Area B- 13th
• Asian Partnership- 14th
• Area C- 19th
• HS Student Govt
• Mid School Student Govt
• Site Council & PTA meetings in Areas A, B & C
Significant focus of community engagement will be at the school level with Site Councils, PTA/PTO’s, and school communities October and beyond.
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Integration
Integration to Support Student Achievement
District Placement System Values
Diversity (integrated learning sites)
Keeping siblings together
Class size goals
Close to Home
Community school guarantee
Stability of pathways K-12
Parent choice to obtain different learning approaches
19
MANAGEMENT PLAN PREVIEW: Integration (cont.)
Short-term (14-15) Strategies for Integration • Examine placement procedures (late arrivals, etc.) • Pursue transportation opportunities • Increase accountability through careful monitoring and reporting
Long-term Strategies for Integration
• Dedicated Board / community dialogue on managing competing values (esp. community schools and integration)
• Review placement procedures • Strengthen ‘Expanded School Options’ • Add capacity at integrated community and magnet schools
20
Our Mission
We exist to ensure that all students learn. We
support their growth into knowledgeable, skilled and
confident citizens capable of succeeding in their
work, personal, family, and community lives into the
21st century.
Our Vision
Every child college and career ready
Our Values
Children first
Right to quality education
Importance of family
Equity
Diversity
Respect for employees
Partnership for youth
Transparency and accountability
Our Theory of Action
Schools as the Unit of Change
5-percent annual increase in students meeting or exceeding state standards in reading and math
8-percent annual increase meeting or exceeding standards in reading and math for our lowest
performing students
10-percent annual increase in the 4-year graduation rate
24
Our Mission
We exist to ensure that all
students learn. We support
their growth into
knowledgeable, skilled and
confident citizens capable of
succeeding in their work,
personal, family, and
community lives into the 21st
century.
Our Values
Children first
Right to quality education
Importance of family
Equity
Diversity
Respect for employees
Partnership for youth
Transparency and
accountability
Our Vision
Every child college and career ready
Our Theory of Action
Schools as the Unit of Change
2020 FRAMEWORK
25
Right to quality education
All children deserve strong, effective public schools that
prepare them for postsecondary education,
lifelong learning, work, and citizenship.
Importance of family
Parents and families want the best for their children. We welcome families into
our schools, encourage their partnership, and expect their
participation in the education of their children.
Equity
Every student deserves equitable access to quality
academic programs and the support to be successful,
regardless of race, economic status, or circumstance.
Diversity
Every student in Minneapolis has outstanding potential, and it is our duty to help him or her
realize that potential. The combination of a diverse
student body and staff is our District’s strength.
Respect for employees
We respect and value all MPS employees. Effective teachers and principals are essential for academic achievement and we
commit to having and supporting the highest-quality
staff.
Partnership for youth
Public and private partnerships are essential
for strong schools and communities. Everyone has
a role in helping future generations succeed.
Transparency and accountability
We commit to being effective and responsible stewards of public and private resources. We pledge transparency and accountability in our finances
and operations.
DISTRICT VALUES - detail
SCHOOLS AS THE UNIT OF CHANGE IF WE… AND… AND… THEN… SO THAT… LEADING TO…
Recognize that improved academic achievement happens in and through our schools…
Principals and their school-based teams are the leaders of that improvement…
Central office exists to: • Establish
parameters to monitor school performance;
• Provide support and service to school leaders and staff in support of student learning;
• Ensure equity of outcomes for all of our students; and
• Increase efficiency across the system…
Principals will be supported and expected to make decisions that improve instruction and create supports to meet the specific needs of their student population within defined parameters…
All students have access to high quality schools, demonstrate persistence, and meet or exceed grade level standards…
EVERY MPS CHILD COLLEGE AND CAREER READY
REQUIRING: A system to hold all schools accountable for performance standards based on a common definition of school quality. An integrated approach to ensuring there are effective employees at every level of the district focused on improving student outcomes. A clear set of academic priorities that academic departments and schools will engage in. A mechanism to allocate resources to schools in an equitable and transparent way based on student needs. Collaborative leadership at school sites under the leadership of high performing principals.
26
THEORY OF ACTION - detail
27
Measures 1 Reading proficiency
2 Math proficiency*
3 Four-year graduation rate*
4 % of incoming MPS students that are Kindergarten-ready
5 % of MPS students that meet or exceed standards for 3rd grade reading proficiency*
6 Science proficiency
7 % of students attending school 95% of the time
8 % of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams taken by MPS students for which a potential college-credit eligible score was earned
9 % of students scoring a 21 or higher on the ACT*
10 Student ‘persistence’ rating TBD
11 Global competency metric TBD
12 % of priority and focus designated schools meeting or exceeding all applicable district targets in reading and math proficiency and graduation rate
* = required by World’s Best Workforce legislation
2020 GOALS - detail
28
Improved Student Outcomes (1 of 2) District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
SY13-14 (unless otherwise noted)
Performance Target Supporting information provided annually SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-
19 SY19-20
1 Reading proficiency 5% annual increase overall 8% annual increase for Students of Color (SOC) Eliminate achievement gap
42% 47% 52% 57% 62% 67% 72% Performance data by race/ethnicity and program (ELL, Sped, FRL)
Reading proficiency- Students of Color
24% 32% 40% 48% 56% 64% 72%
2 Math proficiency* 5% annual increase overall 8% annual increase for Students of Color (SOC) Eliminate achievement gap
43% 48% 53% 58% 63% 68% 73% Performance data by race/ethnicity and program (ELL, Sped, FRL)
Math proficiency- Students of Color
28% 36% 44% 52% 60% 68% 76%
3 Four-year graduation rate* 10% annual increase overall, up to a plateau at 85% to reflect high performance district benchmarks
53.9% (Class of 2013, AYP
2014)
64% 74% 84% 85% 85% 85% • Performance data by race/ethnicity, program (ELL, Sped, FRL), and school type
• Drop out rate • College enrollment
data • 5 and 6 year grad rates
4 % of incoming MPS students that are Kindergarten-ready (BKA literacy) NOTE: assessment will be realigned in 14-15, leading to new baseline and target
3% annual increases based on trend data
70% 73% 76% 79% 82% 85% 88% Performance data by race/ethnicity
5 Reading proficiency, 3rd grade* 5% annual increase overall 8% annual increase for Students of Color (SOC) Eliminate achievement gap
41% 46% 51% 56% 61% 66% 71% Performance data by race/ethnicity and program (ELL, Sped, FRL)
Reading proficiency, 3rd grade- students of color
24% 32% 40% 48% 56% 64% 72%
29
Improved Student Outcomes (2 of 2)
District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance SY13-14 (unless
otherwise noted)
Performance Target Supporting information provided annually
SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
6 Science proficiency 5% annual growth to follow associated growth in reading and math
33% 38% 43% 48% 53% 58% 63% Performance data by race/ethnicity
Science proficiency – Students of Color
8% annual growth, eliminate achievement gap
15% 23% 31% 39% 47% 55% 63%
7 % of students attending school 95% of the time
15% point increase overall Elimination of disparities
60% 63% 65% 68% 70% 73% 75%
Native American 29% 37% 45% 52% 60% 68% 75% African American 49% 53% 58% 63% 68% 73% 75% Asian 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 75% 75% Hispanic 65% 66% 68% 70% 71% 73% 75% White 72% 72% 73% 73% 74% 74% 75% ELL 68% 69% 70% 71% 72% 73% 75% Special Education 44% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75%
8 % of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams taken by MPS students for which a potential college-credit eligible score was earned
3% annual increases based on trend data
44% 47% 50% 53% 56% 59% 64% NOTE: exploring addition of CTE into this metric
9 % of students scoring a 21 or higher on the ACT*
3% annual growth target 33% 36% 39% 42% 45% 48% 51% Performance data by race/ethnicity and program (ELL, Sped, FRL)
10 Student ‘persistence’ rating TBD
********** Measure under development 14-15 / Baseline 15-16 ******* Performance data by student group and grade
11 Global competency metric TBD
********* Measure under development 14-15 / Baseline 15-16 ******** (to include multilingualism, cultural competency, and service learning)
Performance data by student group and grade
12 % of priority and focus designated schools meeting or exceeding district targets in reading and math proficiency and graduation rate (if applicable)
100% by 2020 meeting 5/8/10 targets
n/a TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 100%
30
Measures 13 Students of color achievement gap in reading
14 Students of color achievement gap in math
15 Disparity rate for students of color suspended once or more (risk ratio)
16 % of students meeting or exceeding expected growth targets in reading
17 % of students of color meeting or exceeding expected growth targets in math
18 % of students who enroll in at least one advanced course and receive a 'C' or above (AP, IB, CIS, Advanced CTE, PSEO)
19 % of English learners meeting language growth targets
20 % of English learners meeting language proficiency targets
21 Disparity rate for the identification of students of color for special education services (risk ratio)
2020 GOALS - detail
31
Equity (1 of 3) District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
SY13-14 (unless otherwise noted)
Performance Target Supporting information provided annually SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
13 Students of color achievement gap in reading
Based on meeting 5/8/10
52 pts 43 35 26 17 9 0 pts • Performance data by program (EL vs. non-EL, Sped vs. non-Sped)
• Somali students Native American 55 pts 46 37 28 18 9 0 pts
African American 54 pts 45 36 27 18 9 0 pts
Asian 37 pts 31 25 19 12 6 0 pts
Hispanic 53 pts 44 35 27 18 9 0 pts
14 Students of color achievement gap in math
Based on meeting 5/8/10
49 pts 41 33 25 16 8 0 pts
Native American 53 pts 44 35 27 18 9 0 pts
African American 53 pts 44 35 27 18 9 0 pts
Asian 29 pts 24 19 15 10 5 0 pts
Hispanic 45 pts 38 30 23 15 8 0 pts
15 Disparity rate for students of color suspended once or more (risk ratio)
Eliminate disparities by 2020 (= 1.0 ratio)
4.5 3.9 3.3 2.8 2.2 1.6 1.0
Native American 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 African American 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Asian 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 Hispanic 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 ELL 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 Special Education 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.0
16 % of students meeting or exceeding expected growth targets in reading
Reflects the growth needed to achieve 5/8/10 on proficiency
45.2% (SY12-13) 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Native American 37% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% African American 36% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% 59% Asian 49% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% Hispanic 40% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% White 58% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% ELL 37% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% Special Education 35% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%
32
Equity (2 of 3) District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
SY13-14 (unless otherwise noted)
Performance Target
SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
17 % of students meeting or exceeding expected growth targets in math
Reflects the growth needed to achieve 5/8/10 on proficiency
48.2% (SY12-13)
70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%
Native American 35% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%
African American 40% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%
Asian 54% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
Hispanic 46% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
White 58% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77% 77%
ELL 45% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%
Special Education 37% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58%
18 % of students who enroll in at least one advanced course and receive a 'C' or above (AP, IB, CIS, Advanced CTE, PSEO)
Achieve proportional enrollment among student groups
53% 57% 60% 63% 67% 70% 75%
Native American 28% 36% 44% 52% 59% 67% 75%
African American 39% 45% 51% 57% 63% 69% 75%
Asian 60% 63% 65% 68% 70% 73% 75%
Hispanic 42% 48% 53% 59% 65% 71% 75%
White 73% 74% 74% 74% 75% 75% 75%
ELL 30% 37% 45% 52% 60% 67% 75%
Special Education 26% 34% 43% 51% 59% 67% 75%
19 % of English learners meeting language growth targets
8% annual increase to reach a maximum of 90% (as aspirational as research supports)
47% (SY12-13) / 52% (SY13-14 projected)
58% 65% 71% 77% 84% 90%
20 % of English learners meeting language proficiency targets
Match State targets (represents only 4 years in program to get to proficiency instead of standard of 5-7)
14% (SY12-13) / 15% (13-14 projected)
17% 18% 20% 22% 23% 25%
33
Equity (3 of 3) District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
SY13-14 (unless otherwise noted)
Performance Target
SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
21 Disparity rate for the identification of students of color for special education services (risk ratio)
Eliminate disparities by 2020
1.49 1.41 1.33 1.25 1.16 1.08 1.00
Native American 1.39 1.33 1.26 1.20 1.13 1.07 1.00 African American 1.44 1.37 1.29 1.22 1.15 1.07 1.00 Asian 0.62 0.67 0.72 0.77 0.82 0.87 1.00 Hispanic 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.00
34
Measures 22 % of parents reporting, "I feel welcome at my child's school."
23 % of parents reporting, “I understand the different ways I can be involved in my child's school.”
24 % of community partnerships meeting identified goals (evaluation results)
25 % of parents reporting their child's school meets or exceeds their expectations.
26 % of non-MPS-governed schools (contract alternatives and district authorized charters) meeting performance criteria
27 % of publicly educated Minneapolis-resident students choosing MPS (market share) – by zone
2020 GOALS - detail
35
Family & Community Partnership District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
SY13-14 (unless otherwise noted)
Performance Target
SY15-16 through SY18-19
SY19-20 Supporting information provided annually
22 % of parents reporting, "I feel welcome at my child's school."
**************** Baseline setting 14-15***************** (New parent phone survey / initial data available Fall, 2014)
Child's race/ethnicity and program (Sped, ELL, FRL)
23 % of parents reporting, “I understand the different ways I can be involved in my child's school.”
**************** Baseline setting 14-15***************** (New parent phone survey / initial data available Fall, 2014)
24 % of community partnerships meeting identified goals (evaluation results)
********Measure under development 14-15 / Baseline 15-16 ******* (Evaluation system currently under development)
25 % of parents reporting their child's school meets or exceeds their expectations.
**************** Baseline setting 14-15***************** (New parent phone survey / initial data available Fall, 2014)
Child's race/ethnicity and program (Sped, ELL, FRL)
26 % of non-MPS-governed schools (contract alternatives and district authorized charters) meeting performance criteria
********** Baseline setting 14-15********* (As contracts are renewed, following the contract renewal cycle)
100%
27 % of publicly educated Minneapolis-resident students choosing MPS (market share)
Follow 5-Year enrollment plan assumptions passed by the Board, Fall 2013
District: 67% **Targets pending further analysis** Zone 1: TBD
Zone 2: TBD Zone 3: TBD
36
Measures 28 % of principals rated ‘effective’ overall
29 % of teachers rated ‘effective’ overall
30 Rate of teachers hired early (early hire contract)
31 Rate of teacher vacancies at start of school
32 Employee retention - highly rated staff retained • Teachers • School administrators • Other staff
33 Diversity of school staff (teachers, educational assistants, school administrators)
34 Employee engagement measure TBD
2020 GOALS - detail
37
Effective Teachers, School Leaders, and Staff
District Measures Target Rationale Current Performance
Target Performance
28 % of principals rated ‘effective’ overall ********* Baseline setting 14-15********** (Data available September, 2014)
29 % of teachers rated ‘effective’ overall ********* Baseline setting 14-15********** (Data available December, 2014)
30 % of teachers hired early (early hire contract) ******** Baseline setting 14-15************ (Data available September, 2014)
31 % of teacher positions vacant at the start of school ************ Baseline setting 14-15*********** (Data available September, 2014)
32 Employee retention - highly rated staff retained *********** Baseline setting 14-15*********** (Data available December, 2014)
Teachers - highly rated staff retained
Principals - highly rated staff retained
Other staff - highly rated staff retained
33 Diversity of school staff (teachers, educational assistants, school administrators)
Increase (will not set numerical targets)
25% *************** increase annually***************
Teachers 16%
Educational assistants 42%
School administrators 41%
34 Employee engagement measure TBD **** Measure under development 14-15 / Baseline 15-16 **** (Measurement tool to be developed)
38
Measure 35 Baldrige Criteria score (effectiveness of management systems)
36 Unrestricted Fund balance
37 Budget-to-actual revenue (% variance)
38 Budget-to-actual expenses (% variance)
39 Bond rating
40 Audit opinion
41 Spending with diverse vendors
2020 GOALS - detail
39
Stewardship District Measures Target Rationale Current
Performance SY13-14 (unless
otherwise noted)
Performance Target
SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
35 Baldrige Criteria score (effectiveness of management systems)
**************** Baseline setting 14-15*****************
36 Unrestricted Fund balance Board established range
13% 8%-13% 8%-13% 8%-13% 8%-13% 8%-13% 8%-13%
37 Budget-to-actual revenue (% variance)
Historical trend/ COO recommendation
-2% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2%
38 Budget-to-actual expenses (% variance)
6% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2% within 2%
39 Bond rating AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2 AA2
40 Audit opinion Unqualified Unqualified Unqualified Unqualified Unqualified Unqualified Unqualified
41 Spending with diverse vendors* COO recommendation; contingent on disparity study
6% 10% 10% 12% 12% 12% 12%
40
Measure
42 Transportation on-time arrivals at school
43 Breakfast participation rate
44 Lunch participation rate
45 Placement metric TBD
46 % of funds allocated directly to schools, compared to % allocated to central office
2020 GOALS - detail
41
Resources for Student and Schools District Measures Target Rationale Current
Performance SY13-14 (unless
otherwise noted)
Performance Target Supporting information provided annually
SY14-15 SY15-16 SY16-17 SY17-18 SY18-19 SY19-20
42 Transportation on-time arrivals at school
Historical trend/ COO recommendation
77% (thru March)
79% 81% 83% 85% 87% 89%
43 Breakfast participation rate 34% (thru March)
36% 38% 40% 42% 42% 42% FR eligible and paid
44 Lunch participation rate 62% (thru March)
64% 66% 68% 70% 70% 70%
45 Placement measure TBD ********Measure under development 14-15 *********
46 % of funds allocated directly to schools, compared to % allocated to central office
COO Recommendation; dependent on WSF implementation details
77.7%/ 21.3% (FY15 Budget)
81%/19% 83%/17% 85%/15% 85%/15% 85%/15% 85%/15%