St. Louis Public Schools
Getting Results
Creating the Best Choice
in Urban Education
CCSSO 2007
District Demographics (06-07)
SLPS is a District of Choice:
SLPS Students in City Magnet Schools
Enrollment = 9,211 students
Voluntary Transfer Into SLPS
Enrollment = 391 students
SLPS Students in County Schools
Enrollment = 8,027 students
St. Louis Charter Schools
Enrollment = 5,254 students
CCSSO 2007
SLPS and Student Mobility*
Mobility
Stability
 Elementary Schools—
 Elementary Schools—
33%
85%
 Middle Schools—35%
 Middle Schools—76%
 High Schools—77%
 High Schools—85%
* 2006-2007
CCSSO 2007
Distribution/Elementary
Elementary School Information:
Cluster I: Number of Schools – 20
Number of SPT Schools – 4
Number of Non-SPT Schools – 16
Cluster II – 20: Number of Schools – 20
Number of SPT Schools – 1
Number of Non-SPT Schools – 19
Cluster III – 15: Number of Schools – 15
Number of SPT Schools – 11
Number of Non-SPT Schools - 4
CCSSO 2007
Distribution/Secondary
Middle Schools: Number of Schools - 17
Number of SPT Schools - 11
Number of Non-SPT Schools – 6
High Schools: Number of Schools – 12
Number of SPT Schools – 9
Number of Non-SPT Schools – 3
CCSSO 2007
School Performance Teams Improve
Achievement in Low Performing Schools
Mean Percentage of Students Proficient or Advanced
By Subject, AYP Group, and Grade Level in SY-2005 and SY-2006
Comparing the SPT Schools with non-SPT Schools and Gifted Schools
100
95.4
90
81.8
77.6
Mean Percentage of Students Scoring
Proficient or Advanced on MAP
80
67.6
70
60.7
60
50
40
44.4
39.0
2005
34.7
2006
30
23.2
20.0
20
14.6
11.8
6.9
10
13.2
9.3
7.0
3.2
1.0
0
SPT
Not SPT
Elem
Gifted
SPT
Not SPT
Gifted
Middle
Grade Level, SPT-Type, and Test Year
CCSSO 2007
SPT
Not SPT
High
Gifted
School Improvement Plan
District–wide data-driven format requiring:
•Item analysis
•Root cause analysis
•Research – based promising practices
•Progress monitoring of strategies and initiatives
•Timelines for implementation
•Alignment to district and school goals
•Monitored and evaluated for effectiveness/tied to
principal evaluation 4 times per yr
CCSSO 2007
3 -Pronged Approach for Lighthouse Schools
SQR
Student
Achievement
SPT
CCSSO 2007
SIP
School-Wide Improvement Goals: [TEXT OF GOALS]
School Improvement Objectives for 2007-2008: [TEXT OF OBJECTIVES]
Root Cause(s) 2007-2008: [TEXT OF ROOT CAUSES]
School Improvement Objectives for 2008-2009: [TEXT OF OBJECTIVES]
Intended
Timeframe/
Person(s)
Tasks/Activity
Audience
Dates
Responsible
Specific Actions to Improve
Instructional Practices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CCSSO 2007
Evidence of Effectiveness
How will we know our educational practices
are having desired outcomes?
Root Cause Analysis
 First ask: Why have
students not learned the
skills and knowledge
described in GLEs
 First ask: Will correcting
or eliminating this root
cause result in success?
 Then ask: Is this root
 Then ask: What gaps or
inconsistencies exist in
curriculum:
Implementation
 Monitoring

CCSSO 2007
cause important enough
for us to focus time and
energy in the planning
process?
 Are any of the
possible root causes
enabling factors …


that is, those aspects
within the school that
might be negatively
impacting teaching and
learning;
or core factors – that is,
those that are directly
related to teaching and
learning?
CCSSO 2007
 Are there any other
factors related to
instruction and curriculum
that might affect students’
ability
to master the knowledge
and content?
 Prioritize root causes to
target those that if
removed would be likely
to improve student
achievement
 Select research-based
and/or promising
practices to mitigate root
causes
CCSSO 2007
 Include progress
monitoring to assess
effectiveness
School Improvement Plan
5 “Domains”—aligned with the district CSIP:
I. Communication Arts
II. Math
III. Attendance
IV. Safe and Orderly Environment
V. Parent/Community Involvement
CCSSO 2007
•Building district capacity to meet Missouri School
Improvement Plan (MSIP) standards and accreditation
•Ensuring accuracy of core data
•Building capacity of schools to improve academic
performance by supporting data-driven-decision making
models
•Implementing continuous school improvement planning and
accountability processes using:
Summative MAP assessment data
Diagnostic TerraNova assessment data
Formative Benchmark Assessment data every 6 weeks
Core data in School Scorecards each quarter
Achievement Gap data
Root Cause Analysis
Research-based, promising practices to mitigate root
causes
CCSSO 2007
Elementary Data Analysis
Cluster I
 The SPT schools represent 20% of the total number of schools in
Cluster I for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the SPT schools
showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent
increase of 47.8%
 100% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication
Arts, with an average percent increase of 177%
 In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 80% of the total
number of schools in Cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year-43.75% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics,
with an average percent increase of 88.3%
 31.25% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 48.5%
CCSSO 2007
Elementary Data Analysis
Cluster II
 The SPT schools represent 5% of the total number of schools in
cluster II for the 2006-2007 school year--0% of the SPT schools
showed an increase in Mathematics and Communication Arts
 In comparison, the non-SPT schools represent 95% of the total
number of schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-10.5% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 13.2%
 31.6% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 15.1%
CCSSO 2007
Elementary Data Analysis
Cluster III
 The SPT schools represent 73.3% of the total number of schools
in Cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year-- 27.3% of the SPT
schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average
percent increase of 42.7%
 36.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication
Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.1%
 The non-SPT schools represent 26.7% of the total number of
schools in cluster III for the 2006-2007 school year--50% of the
non-SPT schools showed increases in Mathematics, with an
average percent increase of 116.6%
 50% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 150.6%
CCSSO 2007
Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in
Mathematics
Average Percent Increase
140.0%
120.0%
116.6%
100.0%
88.3%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
47.8%
42.7%
20.0%
0.0% 13.2%
0.0%
Cluster I
SPT Schools
CCSSO 2007
Cluster II
Non SPT Schools
Cluster III
Elementary Schools SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in
Communication Arts
200.0%
160.0%
177.0%
150.6%
120.0%
80.0%
40.0%
48.5%
0.0% 15.1%
0.0%
Cluster I
SPT Schools
CCSSO 2007
Cluster II
Non SPT Schools
29.1%
Cluster III
Middle School
Data Analysis
 The SPT schools represent 64.7% of the total number of middle
schools for the 2006-2007 school year--63.6% of the SPT schools
showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent
increase of 91.4%
 63.6% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication
Arts, with an average percent increase of 29.4%.
 the non-SPT schools represent 35.3% of the total number of
middle schools for the 2006-2007 school year--16.7% of the nonSPT schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average
percent increase of 6.1%
 0% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Communication Arts
CCSSO 2007
Middle School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in
Mathematics / Communication Arts
100.0%
80.0%
91.4%
60.0%
40.0%
29.4%
20.0%
0.0%
6.1%
Mathematics
SPT Schools
CCSSO 2007
0.0%
Communication Arts
Non SPT Schools
High School
Data Analysis
 The SPT schools represent 75% of the total number of high schools
for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the SPT schools showed an
increase in Mathematics, with an average percent increase of 37.7%
 44.4% of the SPT schools showed an increase in Communication
Arts, with an average percent increase of 101.9%
 The non-SPT schools represent 25% of the total number of high
schools for the 2006-2007 school year--33.3% of the non-SPT
schools showed an increase in Mathematics, with an average percent
increase of 4.0%
 33.3% of the non-SPT schools showed an increase in
Communication Arts, with an average percent increase of 86.4%
CCSSO 2007
High School SPT and Non-SPT Comparison in
Mathematics / Communication Arts
Average Percent Increase
120.0%
100.0%
101.9%
86.4%
80.0%
60.0%
40.0%
37.7%
20.0%
0.0%
4.0%
Mathematics
SPT Schools
CCSSO 2007
Communication Arts
Non SPT Schools
(Internal) School Quality Reviews
Purpose
•Promote overall culture of continuous improvement
•Systemically gather and share school quality info to
inform decision making
•Identify research-based long-term strategies
Process
•Pre-onsite data and doc review
•On-site visitation w/interviews
•Draft report…refutations
•Final report to inform decision making for school and
district
CCSSO 2007
District Interventions & Assistance RE: SIP
2005-2006
School Performance Teams
2006-2007
School Performance Teams and
data-driven SIP
2007-2008
School Performance Teams in Cluster 3
schools –more intense application of
model
All schools: data-driven SIP with PD
embedded and aligned with item/data
analysis,implementation tied to principal
evaluations (formal process 4 X yr)
CCSSO 2007
September: Administrators will review and revise SIP
October:
Administrator will schedule formal meeting with SIP
team, supervisor , OAAI and PD staff
November:
Supervisor will discuss SIP adjustments resulting from
October meeting and data review
February:
Administrator will schedule formal SIP review with
SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress
March:
Administrator will continue data review and development
of next year’s SIP
April:
Complete review of current SIP and draft of next year’s SIP,
formal review with SIP team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff
to review progress
May:
Schedule final formal SIP review with with SIP
team, supervisor, OAAI and PD staff to review progress
CCSSO 2007