District Action Planning Case Scenario

FlowchartQuestion:Doesthe DLThaveanexistingpriorityidentified?

Yes,increasingthedistrictwidegraduationrateidentified asaprioritythroughtheirdistrictstrategicplanning process.

FlowchartQuestion:Istheprioritystudentoutcomefocused?

Yes,thepriorityisstudentoutcomefocused.

FlowchartQuestion:Canstudentfocusedprioritybeverifiedwithdata?(GuidingQuestions:1-4)

GuidingQuestion1: Whataretheexpected/goallevelsofperformance?

  • Florida DOE’sgraduationgoal forthe2013-2014schoolyearis90%
  • District’s2012-2013graduationratewas72%
  • Shorttermgraduationgoalof77% forthe2013-2014school year
  • Long-termgoalof 92%bythe2017-2018schoolyear
  • Increaseof5% eachyear2013-2014to2017-2018willmeetstate’s2017-2018graduationgoal

GuidingQuestion2: What% oftotalstudentpopulationmeetsorexceedsexpectations/goallevelsof performancew/inselectedpriorityarea?

100%

90%

DistrictGraduationTrendandGoals

90%

92%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

67%65%

72%

72%

201020112012201320142015201620172018

OverallGraduationRateStateGoalAimline

GuidingQuestion3: Whatisthegapbetweenexpected/goallevelsandcurrentlevelsofperformance w/intheselectedpriorityarea?Doesa problemexist?

Thegapbetweentheshort-term(2014)goalgraduationrateandthecurrentrate is5%.Thegapbetween thelong-term(2018)goalgraduationrateandthecurrentrateis20%.

GuidingQuestion4: Dodataindicateequityissuesrelatedtotheselectedpriorityarea?Arethere subgroups(Gender,Race,SES, ESE)for whichthe gap ismore/lesssignificant?

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


GraduationRatebyGender

2010201120122013

MaleFemale

  • Verylittledifferenceingraduationratesbetweenmaleandfemalestudents
  • Graduationdata,whendisaggregatedbysubgroup,indicate equityissuesnegativelyimpactingthegraduationratesofAfricanAmerican,Hispanic,NativeAmerican,Economically Disadvantagedstudentsas wellas students

FlowchartQuestion:IspriorityareaanalyzedforscopeofimpactonPK-12system?(GuidingQuestions:5-7)

GuidingQuestion5:Howdostudentsprogressw/inthePK-12systemrelatedtothepriorityarea?Do cohortdataindicatetheproblemdiffersbetweenschoolsorgrades?

Trackingstudentsbycohortfrom6thgradethroughexpected graduationyear, the followinggraphdepictson-tracktrendsforstudentsentering6thgradein 2003(2010Cohort),2004(2011Cohort),2005(2012Cohort),2006(2013Cohort),and2007(2014Cohort).

MiddleGrades:Overall,studentcohortsdemonstrateaslightdeclineinremainingontrackforgraduationduringtheirmiddleschoolyears.

HighSchool:Dataacrossallcohortsindicatea significantdeclineinthepercentageof studentsremainingon-trackfor graduationduringtheir9thgradeyear,withanaveragedeclineof 23%.

GuidingQuestion6:Arethere feederpatterndifferencesrelatedtothepriorityarea?(Does the problemdifferbyschoolfeederpattern?)

  • Thedataindicatethatthedecreaseinthepercentageofon-trackstudentsattheendof 9thgradeisevidentin High School1,3,and4.
  • HighSchool2 demonstratedanincreaseinthepercentageofstudentson-trackforgraduationatthe endof9thgrade.Thedatado notindicatea clearpatternbetweenthepercentageofincomingon-trackstudentsandthepercentageof on-trackstudentsattheendof9thgrade.
  • Analysisofthedataindicatesthatthepercentageofincomingon-track9thgradestudentsa schoolreceivesdoesnot accuratelypredictthepercentageofstudentsthat achieveon-timegraduation.

GuidingQuestion7:Specifictothepriority,whatadditionalvariablesmaybe consideredforfurtherdisaggregatedanalysisofimpact(e.g.,contentarea,coursetype,yearsofteachingexperience, percentageofmissedinstruction,etc.)?

TheDLTreviewed9thgradeEarlyWarningIndicatorData(i.e.,attendance, office referrals,coursefailures,creditaccrual,GPA)forthe2010,2011,2012,2013and2014Cohorts.

  • 83% of studentsgetoff-trackin9thgradeduetocoursefailuresandinsufficientcreditaccrual
  • Of those off-track students,11%alsodemonstratedattendanceissueswhile14% earneda GPAlessthan2.0
  • Below; % of students missing more than 10% of instruction in the grading period, & receiving 2 or more office referrals in the grading period

Indicator / HighSchool1 / HighSchool2 / HighSchool3 / HighSchool4
Attendance / 34% / 19% / 24% / 20%
Office Referrals / 31% / 14% / 19% / 12%
Algebra1 / 45% / 27% / 35% / 20%
RemedialMath / 27% / 11% / 23% / 17%
LanguageArts1 / 20% / 8% / 12% / 14%
AmericanHistory / 23% / 9% / 15% / 13%
  • Algebra1coursefailuresareatorabove20%inallfourhighschoolsandRemedialMathcoursefailureratesaregreaterthan20%inHighSchool1andHighSchool3
  • HighSchool1, whichhadthelowestpercentageofon-track9thgradestudents,hadfourcourseswithgreaterthan20%failurerate
  • Attendance was identified as a problem in all four schools. Two schools had 1 in 5 students missing out on at least 10% of instructional opportunity. A third school had nearly 1 in 4 missing out on more than 10% and one high school had over 1 in 3 students missing out on at least 10% of instructional opportunities.

What portion of students failing Algebra also meets attendance warning criteria?

Students Failing Algebra 1 / HighSchool1 / HighSchool2 / HighSchool3 / HighSchool4
Attendance / 64% / 45% / 52% / 38%
  • Depending on the school, a third to two-thirds of students failing Algebra 1 also are also missing at least 10% of instructional opportunities.

FlowchartQuestion:IstheDLTreadytoidentifyorconfirma student-focusedpriority?

  • By 2014, decrease the percentage of students with attendance warnings by 50%
  • By2014,decreasethepercentageofstudentsfailingAlgebra1by50%
  • By2014,increasethepercentageofstudentson-trackattheendof 9thgradeby25%
  • By2014,increaseoverallgraduationratefrom72%to77%

FlowchartQuestion:CantheDLTidentifyorganizationalissuesattheschoollevelthatmaybeimpactingtheselected priority?(GuidingQuestions89)

GuidingQuestion8:What is the fidelity of implementing MTSS implementation at the school level and what may be causing or contributing to the identified student performance problem(s)?

Self-Assessment of MTSS (SAM)

Leadership

Lack of established vision and urgent desire for MTSS and lack ofleadership teams with strategic plans to lead MTSS implementation

Capacity/Infrastructure

 Staff lack understanding of the critical elements of MTSS, how to use and interpret assessments and data sources, engage in problem solving and lack access to on-going coaching to support implementation.

3-tier Model

  • Limited differentiated instruction at Tier 1 academic
  • No Tier 1 for behavior.
  • Limited to no options for supplemental & intensive supports.

FlowchartQuestion:CantheDLTidentifyorganizationalissuesatthedistrictlevelthatmaybeimpactingtheselected priority?(GuidingQuestions1011)

GuidingQuestion9:What is the fidelity of implementing MTSS at the district level and what may be causing or contributing to the school-level organizational issues identified in question #8?

Capacity/Infrastructure

  • Lack leadership for school teams to implement MTSS
  • Lack structured planning that involves problem solving
  • Lack data on problem solving, issues impacting outcomes, implementation of tiers 2 and 3

3-tier Model

  • Lack district policies explicit in expectations regarding MTSS implementation
  • District plans (K-12 Reading, District Improvement Plan) do not integrate MTSS

FlowchartQuestion:DoesDLThaveconsensusontheorganizationalissue(s)thatwillbetargeted forproblemsolvingandactionplanning?(GuidingQuestion12)

GuidingQuestion10:Whichorganizationalissue(s)willbeprioritizedas theyaremost impactfulonstudent-focusedpriority,mostfoundational,and/orareimmediatelyactionable?

  • Leadership connections to promote MTSS implementation; specifically implementing data-based problem solving and 3-tier system.
  • Identify barriers to implementing 3-tiered system.
  • Need supports for high schools to use data for problem solving the target priority and with implementing MTSS