flexible learning year application 2013-2016 presentation at public hearings

Flexible Learning Year

Results/Accomplishments of Fly 1

Focus for FLY 2

Flexible Learning Year Application2013-2016

Presentation at Public Hearings

FLY 1What were the

results?

What were the accomplishmen

ts?

VISION

Improve student

achievement

Mission

Make systemic changes enabling

improvement in student

achievement

FLY 1--Goals Schedule more high impact

learning time prior to high stakes assessments

Work collaboratively to improve teacher effectiveness

Members of the Flexible Learning Year

Consortium

FLY 1All 25 FLY

Consortium school districts agreed to the following eight

membership requirements!

1. Schedule and conduct three (3) Public Hearings

2. Commit for three (3) years

3. Instructional time => instructional minutes in 09-10

4. Districts must adopt these common calendar dates

The first day of school – August 19, 2013 First semester will end—December 20, 2013 The first day of second semester --January 6 or 7, 2014 Three full Joint Staff Development days--TBD Two “Early Out” professional development days--TBD

Eight Requirements of Participation

5. Commit $10 per pupil to consortium joint fund $10 per pupil X 16,000 pupils = $160,000

annually Funds used to conduct FLY activities

6. Identify FLY Professional Development representative

7. Commit to continue development of Professional Learning Communities

8. Commitment to create and share data w/consortium and MDE

Eight Requirements of Participation

FLY 1—Goal #1

Schedule more high impact

learning time

High Impact Learning Days

Rescheduled Days on School Calendar

Create “Time” to prepare for State Assessments Provide students additional time prior to state testing—move 7-10 instructional days from end of school calendar to beginning of calendar

Increase Student Motivation Maximize “high impact instructional time”

Create a Sensible, Natural Semester Break Between the first and second semesters

Do students perform better on statewide assessments

in years in which they have more school days to

prepare?

Research –More Time Makes a Difference!

Unscheduled School Closings and Student Performance

Dave E. Marcotte and Steven W. HemeltJuly 2007

Research--Unscheduled School Closings and Student

Performance

Studied the impact of school closures (lost instructional days) on student performance using data from Maryland Public Schools.

Reviewed data of students in the 3rd, 5th and 8th grades who took Maryland’s standardized math and reading assessments from 1994 through 2005.

Research--Unscheduled School Closings and Student

PerformanceFindings—

Each day lost reduced the percent of 3rd grade children performing satisfactorily on the reading exam by 0.508 percent and on the math exam by 0.527 percent

In years with an average of :

five (5) unscheduled closings, nearly 3% fewer third graders performed satisfactorily on reading and math assessments than would have if there were no unscheduled closings at all.

ten (10) unscheduled closings, more than 5% fewer third graders performed satisfactorily on reading and math assessments.

The higher the concentration of low income students, the more profound the negative impact.

The negative impact on student achievement in reading and math at the 5th and 8th grade levels was less profound than the impact for 3rd graders.

Research--Impact on AYP Status

Implications of lost instructional days on likelihood of making AYP If there had been no unscheduled school

closures-- In 2003 in reading, 30 of 52 failing elementary

schools would have surpassed the AYP threshold.

In 2003 in math, 34 of 56 failing elementary schools would have surpassed the AYP threshold.

The researcher’s concluded that additional days of instruction prior to testing do improve achievement on standardized tests.

FLY 1 – Goal #2

Work collaboratively

to improve teacher

effectiveness

Pooled Resources for Professional Development

Enhanced Professional Development Opportunities

Consortium Districts pooled resources Funding-- $10 per pupil X 16,000 pupils = $160,000

annually Provided Professional Development Opportunities for

Professional Staff that could not have been provided by any single isolated district

FLY Professional Development Team (PDT) One representative from each school district PDT met periodically throughout year to coordinate activities

Research--Teacher Induction Programs

“The experiences of the first days and years in an educator’s career are crucial and can either positively or negatively impact his or her career, as well as student achievement.”

Minnesota Educator Induction Guidelines p. 6

Research--Teacher Induction Programs

The Minnesota Department of Education (2007) reported that for the first-year teachers hired in 2001, 68% were still teaching in Minnesota (but not necessarily in the same school district in which they started) and only 48% were still teaching in the same school district after five years.

With almost one third of the teaching force leaving teaching in Minnesota after five years and 20% changing districts in that same time, issues of teacher attrition and turnover are costing Minnesota schools resources and expertise.

Minnesota Educator Induction Guidelines, p. 5

Teacher Induction Programs

Comprehensive Teacher Induction Programs

Each consortium district implemented a comprehensive Teacher Induction Program.

Each school district identified one Teacher Induction Coordinator (TIC).

TIC’s received training and met on an ongoing basis.

A process for cross district mentoring was established.

By June 30, 2013, we stated the FLY 1 proposal would result in:

Increased student achievement

Professional Learning Communities and Teacher Induction Programs will be embedded in all consortium school districts

Favorable student, family and staff support of school calendar

Hypothesis

Student Achievement Measurements

We determined we would measure academic performance in math, reading and writing as follows:

Individual district math and reading index rate goals

Individual district subgroup index rate math and reading goals

Consortium-wide math and reading index rate goals

Written composition— percent proficient goals

FLY Consortium Wide Results

AYP Index Rate Goals - READING2009

Baseline Data Index

Rate

2010 Data Index Rate




80.67 79.75 81.73 82.46

AYP Index Rate Goals - MATH2009

Baseline Data Index

Rate





73.99 74.93 68.49* 73.23

AYP Index Rate Goals – GRAD Writing2009

Baseline Data

Percent Proficient

2010 Data Percent

Proficient

2011 Data Percent

Proficient

2012 Data Percent

Proficient

2013 Data Percent

Proficient

91.0% 90.0% 89.0 % 91.0%

* First Year of MCA-III Math assessment so we are not able to compare to the previous year’s data.

Student Achievement

Luverne Public Schools

District #2184

Student Achievement

Results

Luverne Public School District #2184AYP Index Rate Goals - READING

2009 Baseline Data Index

Rate





87.31 87.66 88.24 88.46

AYP Index Rate Goals - MATH

2009 Baseline Data Index

Rate





80.71 83.63 71.41* 79.58

AYP Index Rate Goals – GRAD Writing

2009 Baseline Data Percent

Proficient

2010 Data Percent

Proficient

2011 Data Percent

Proficient

2012 Data Percent

Proficient

2013 Data Percent

Proficient

97% 95% 87.4% 95.2%

ACT Performance Report

2009 Baseline Data Avg. Composite

Score

2010 Data Avg.

Composite Score

2011 Data Avg.

Composite Score

2012 Data Avg.

Composite Score

2013 Data Avg.

Composite Score

21.19 22.5 22.2 22.8


Luverne Public School District #2184

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





Hispanic - READING

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





77.5 79.55 80.95 72.73

Hispanic - MATH

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





58.82 67.31 57.50* 57.50

Luverne Public Schools #2184

Special Education - READING

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





68.11 71.54 68.95 71.98

Special Education - MATH

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





61.48 63.57 48.71* 62.61

Free & Reduced Lunch Pricing - READING

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





83.52 82.59 80.72 78.72

Free & Reduced Lunch Pricing - MATH

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





76.12 76.28 60.39* 67.70

Luverne Public Schools District #2184

White - READING

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





87.72 87.96 88.55 89.44

White - MATH

2009 Baseline

Data Index Rate





81.41 84.52 71.29* 80.80


Professional Development

Consortium-wideYear by Year

Accomplishments

(Next seven slides)

Professional Development Activities 2010-2011

All FLY Staff Dr. Thomas Many-one of the authors of “Leading by

Doing” a Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work (a book all FLY PLC trainers and administrators read)

PLC Trainers Solution Tree Trainers-Geri Parscale and Jack

Baldermann

Teacher Induction Coordinator Darla Harstad-Mentor Coordinator for Alexandria

School District Deb Luedtke-professional development supervisor from

MDE

Superintendents Trained by Darla Harstad in Teacher Induction

Framework


Other Paired with Southwest Initiative Foundation to

offer classes from Children’s Museum of Minnesota for Early Childhood Teachers

Standards Based IEPs training Mental Health Workshop

Paraprofessional Training offered at three sites


PLC Trainers Solution Tree Trainers-Chris Jakicic-contributor to

several books and Eric Twadell-co-author “Leading by Design” An Action Framework for PLC at Work Leaders (a book all administrators and PLC trainers are reading) and contributor of several other articles

Teacher Induction Coordinator Joint Mentor/New Teacher training at two sites

Cross-District PLCs Met three times

Paraprofessionals Training at one site


All FLY Staff Cassandra Erkens-co-author “Leading by Design--An Action

Framework for PLC at Work Leaders” (a book all administrators and PLC trainers are reading) and contributor of several other books

Todd Whitaker-National Speaker and author of several books

Dylan Wiliam-”Author of Embedded Formative Assessment” , international expert on assessment and grading is contracted to address all FLY staff January 21, 2013.

Teacher Induction Coordinators Mentor/New Teacher training at three sites

Ongoing training with Lori Bird, coordinator for the Center for Mentoring and Teacher Induction at Minnesota State University-Mankato


PLC Trainers Cassandra Erkens Margaret Biggerstaff, MDE staff (planned)

Ongoing Networking sessions meeting in August and January-all FLY

staff

Other Nurses’ Training

Planned Paraprofessional Training MDE webinars

Professional Learning Communities Outcomes

Implemented DuFour’s framework in all 25 districts

Implemented Cross-district PLCs across Consortium

Research -based ongoing professional development for all administrators and trainers

Training from nationally recognized speakers Two progress reports completed and submitted

to MDE PLC depth of implementation survey completed

each year by every district

Teacher Induction Program Outcomes

Teacher Induction Year 1 and 2 programs in every school district

Year 3 framework developed

Training from state recognized presenters

Implementation checklist and rubric completed each year

Survey Results

Attitudes of Students, Family and Staff about Flexible Learning Year

Attendance Information Related to:

Pre-Labor Day Student AttendanceVacation and State Fair (4-H Involvement)

Consortium-wide data followed by local data shown on next thirteen slides

Consortium-wide Survey Results


Survey Results—Consortium-wide Data—Spring 2012

Consortium-wide Survey Results—Spring 2012

I feel the flexible learning year will…

Strongly Agree or

AgreeNeutr

al

Strongly Disagree or

Disagree

Improve education quality: 49% 33% 18%

Create a less stressful holiday break: 61% 20% 19%

Decrease focus in classroom: 24% 37% 39%

Improve test scores: 46% 32% 22%

Increase students’ comfort w/testing: 44% 32% 24%

Positively impact summer jobs: 47% 33% 20%

I don't like the concept of having homework or projects over holiday break:

75% 15% 10%

Scheduled breaks affect when my family plans vacation:

58% 27% 15%

I feel students and teachers are ready to go back to school in August (before Labor day):

40% 19% 41%

I feel there is less focus in the classroom right before the summer and Christmas Breaks:

71% 18% 11%

I don’t think school should be in session after the completion of state tests:

42% 36% 22%

I feel the five combined professional development days for teachers will improve the quality of

teaching:

42% 32% 26%

I feel the five combined professional development day will improve test scores for the 25 involved

school districts:

27% 38% 35%

I feel that each school district should set their own start/stop dates rather than collaborate on a

uniform calendar:

40% 28% 32%

Consortium-wide Survey Results –Spring 2012

Rank the benefits of the Flexible Learning Year initiative on the statements below on a scale of 1 to 5. (1 meaning least beneficial and 5 meaning most beneficial. 0 indicates not beneficial at all)

5=Most Beneficial1=Least Beneficial

0=Not Beneficial at all

5 4 3 2 1 0

Shared collaboration and staff training 25 included

school districts:

15% 22% 36% 11% 8% 8%

Increased amount of class time before testing:

20% 27% 25% 11% 8% 9%

Increased preparation for testing:

23% 29% 25% 10% 7% 6%

Improved test scores: 21% 27% 27% 10% 8% 7%

Ending first semester before Christmas break:

41% 22% 18% 6% 7% 6%

Consortium-wide Survey Results


Pre-Labor Day Student Attendance

Vacation and State Fair (4-H Involvement)

Late summer family vacations—Late August, Early September 2010-2011 100% of family vacations excused. (238/16,000 possible) 2011-2012 100% of family vacations excused. (274 /16,000 possible) 2012-2013 100% of family vacations excused. (201/16,000 possible)

4-H Participation in the State Fair

Data indicates an increase in State Fair 4-H exhibitors. 2009-635 exhibitors 2010-676 exhibitors (+6% increase) 2010-676 exhibitors 2011-676 exhibitors 2011-676 exhibitors 2012-690 exhibitors (+2% increase)

100% of students attending State Fair “Excused Absences” 2010-2011 (301 students of 16,000 possible in 2010) 2011-2012 (359 students of 16,000 possible in 2011) 2012-2013 (339 students of 16,000 possible in 2012)

Consortium-wide DataPre-Labor Day Vacations & State

Fair

FLY Consortium—Vacations and State FairVacation State Fair

Students DaysMissed Student Days

Missed

2010-2011 238 472 301 660

2011-2012 274 463 359 632

2012-2013 201 317 339 779

Luverne Public Schools #2184—Spring 2012

I feel the flexible learning year will…

Strongly Agree or

AgreeNeutr

al

Strongly Disagree or

Disagree

Improve education quality: 50% 29% 21%

Create a less stressful holiday break: 62% 19% 19%

Decrease focus in classroom: 23% 35% 41%

Improve test scores: 46% 29% 24%

Increase students’ comfort w/testing: 46% 29% 26%

Positively impact summer jobs: 59% 29% 20%

I don't like the concept of having homework or projects over holiday break:

73% 17% 10%

Scheduled breaks affect when my family plans vacation:

58% 24% 17%

I feel students and teachers are ready to go back to school in August (before Labor day):

34% 22% 44%

I feel there is less focus in the classroom right before the summer and Christmas Breaks:

67% 20% 11%

I don’t think school should be in session after the completion of state tests:

42% 36% 21%

I feel the five combined professional development days for teachers will improve the quality of

teaching:

40% 37% 22%

I feel the five combined professional development day will improve test scores for the 25 involved

school districts:

30% 26% 44%

I feel that each school district should set their own start/stop dates rather than collaborate on a

uniform calendar:

47% 27% 32%

Luverne Public School District #2184—Spring 2012

Rank the benefits of the Flexible Learning Year initiative on the statements below on a scale of 1 to 5. (1 meaning least beneficial and 5 meaning most beneficial. 0 indicates not beneficial at all)

5=Most Beneficial1=Least Beneficial

0=Not Beneficial at all

5 4 3 2 1 0

Shared collaboration and staff training 25 included

school districts:

13% 21% 37% 13% 8% 8%

Increased amount of class time before testing:

17% 27% 24% 13% 9% 10%

Increased preparation for testing:

21% 27% 24% 12% 7% 7%

Improved test scores: 22% 26% 25% 10% 8% 9%

Ending first semester before Christmas break:

39% 22% 18% 6% 7% 8%


Pre-Labor Day Student AttendanceVacation and State Fair (4-H Involvement)

Luverne Public Schools District #2184–Vacation and State Fairs

Vacation State Fair

Students Days Missed Students Days

Missed

2010-2011 0 0 23 4

2011-2012 23 18 55 11.5

2012-2013 7 5 16 3

FLY 2-- Proposed Timeline

November 7, 2012 – Joint school board meeting in Tracy for discussion regarding current FLY efforts and proposed FLY application.

November 26, 2012 – Public Meeting December 6, 2012 – Public Meeting December 17, 2012 –Public Meeting January 31, 2013 – By the end of January, school

boards confirm commitment and participation through formal board action at their regular January meetings.

February 1, 2013 – Submit applications to MDE March 15, 2013 – Expect response from the

Commissioner of Education for new 3-year Flexible Learning Year.

Focus for FLY –2

Improve Student Achievement –(Continuation of FLY 1)

Continue with Calendar changes established in FLY 1—Continue to schedule high impact learning time (days) prior to high stakes assessments

Continue to work collaboratively to improve teacher effectiveness

Questions?

flexible learning year application 2013-2016 presentation at public hearings

Documents