DRAFT 1 Agenda Tutoring Program Review ECE Expansion Update - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
draft
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

DRAFT 1 Agenda Tutoring Program Review ECE Expansion Update - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 09, 2023 167 likes •403 views

DRAFT 1 Agenda Tutoring Program Review ECE Expansion Update October Board Report Next steps DRAFT 2 Agenda Tutoring Program Review Overview of Mill Levy math tutoring investment program Denver Math

slide-1
SLIDE 1

DRAFT

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DRAFT

Agenda

  • Tutoring Program Review
  • ECE Expansion Update
  • October Board Report
  • Next steps

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

DRAFT

Agenda

Tutoring Program Review

  • Overview of Mill Levy math tutoring

investment program

  • Denver Math Fellows overview &

implementation

  • Flexible schools overview & implementation
  • Progress monitoring during 2013-14

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

DRAFT

5

Denver Math Fellows Program

slide-5
SLIDE 5

DRAFT What is the Denver Math Fellows program?

6

slide-6
SLIDE 6

DRAFT

Why expand the Denver Math Fellows program? Pilot program demonstrated strong impact in FNE

7

51 50 53.5 54 53 69 50 49 64

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 District 9th Grade (2013 N= 4352) Non‐Tutored 9th Grade (2013 N= 3970) Tutored 9th Grade (2013 N= 382)

9th Grade

2011 2012 2013

50 50 47 52 51 79 53 52 76

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 District 4th Grade (2013 N= 5934) Non‐Tutored 4th Grade (2013 N= 5786) Tutored 4th Grade (2013 N= 148)

4th Grade

2011 2012 2013

58 58 39 59 59 61 61 61 44

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 District 6th Grade (2013 N= 5385) Non‐Tutored 6th Grade (2013 N= 5282) Tutored 6th Grade (2013 N= 103)

6th Grade

2011 2012 2013 2013 schools include: Ford Elementary, Green Valley Ranch Elementary, McGlone Elementary, DCIS Montbello MS and HS, Collegiate Prep Academy HS, High Tech Early College, Noel Community Arts High School

We launched the tutorial pilot in 2011-12, and students were first tested on TCAP in spring 2012.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

DRAFT Denver Math Fellows core components

8

  • 45 minutes of daily small group tutoring in 4th, 6th and 8th grades.
  • Pullout intervention that does not supplant daily mathematics

instruction.

  • Program utilizes “Do the Math” at 4th grade, and “Do the Math Now”

and “Navigator” at 6th and 8th grades.

  • Lesson sequence is standards‐based with a clear objective, “do now,”

“exit ticket” and adaptive instruction based on student mastery of

  • bjectives.
  • Students are assessed five times per year via the Scholastic Math

Inventory (SMI).

slide-8
SLIDE 8

DRAFT Checkpoints on the way to successful implementation

9

  • Roll-out program to school leaders
  • Hire 313 math tutors and 22 coordinators
  • Set-up tutorial environments in all schools
  • Seamless launch with start of school
  • Administer first SMI assessment by 9/ 13
  • Ensure early fidelity in implementation

Jan 2013 Feb-Jun 2013 Jun-Aug 2013 Aug 2013 Sept 2013 Sept-Oct 2013

slide-9
SLIDE 9

DRAFT

10

Flexible Tutorial Fund Schools

slide-10
SLIDE 10

DRAFT Expectations for schools with flexibility in spending tutorial funding

11

  • 45 minutes of daily math support during the school day, for 4th, 6th and

8th graders who scored below proficient on prior year’s TCAP math.

  • No more than 5:1 student‐to‐staff ratio.
  • Intervention is a pullout that is in addition to 75 minutes of daily core

mathematics instruction.

  • Students should not be pulled out of any core instruction.
  • Lessons are standards‐based with clear objectives based on individual

students’ needs.

  • Students are regularly assessed in relation to both foundational math

skills and grade level content.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

DRAFT Checkpoints on the way to successful implementation

12

  • Roll-out program to 66 school leaders
  • Schools develop intervention plans and identify staffing

needs for 13-14

  • Purchase intervention materials and interim

assessment programs

  • Utilize TCAP data to identify students in need
  • Administer first SMI (or other interim) assessment
  • Ensure early fidelity in implementation

Jan 2013 Feb-Jun 2013 Jun-Aug 2013 Aug 2013 Sept 2013 Sept-Oct 2013

slide-12
SLIDE 12

DRAFT

13

Progress Monitoring for 13-14

slide-13
SLIDE 13

DRAFT Impact goals for 2013-14 school year

14

1. TCAP Math proficiency will increase by 3.5% for tutored students. 2. Percentage of tutored students scoring a 50 MGP or greater will increase by 3.5‐5%. 3. Academic achievement gaps will decrease by 3.5‐5% for tutored students. 4. 100% of schools aligned with program parameters to ensure fidelity of implementation Denver Math Fellow Specific 1. 100% staffed and initially trained to start the year. Achieved. 2. Retain 90% of fellows throughout the entire year and develop a waitlist to backfill

  • penings as needed.
slide-14
SLIDE 14

DRAFT How will we monitor progress during the course of the year?

15

1. Steady decreases in students testing “Below Basic” and “Basic” on each progressive SMI assessment. 2. From SMI 1 to SMI 5, see gains in numbers of students testing at or above proficient. 3. Math Fellow Development: weekly observations and coaching; monthly campus based training; weekly feedback survey by fellow and school.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

DRAFT Next Steps

  • Share SMI data after the completion of SMI 1 & 2.
  • Tour of elementary and middle school Denver Math

Fellows program.

  • Presentations from schools receiving math intervention

flexible funds to discuss their intervention approaches.

16

slide-16
SLIDE 16

DRAFT

Agenda

ECE Expansion Update

17

slide-17
SLIDE 17

DRAFT 2012 Regional Unmet ECE Needs Analysis

18

Northwest Denver

Program Demand Supply Gap Half‐day 235 894 ‐659 Full‐day 1,068 777 318 FDE 1,186 1,224 ‐38

Southwest Denver

Program Demand Supply Gap Half‐day 210 474 ‐264 Full‐day 1,022 704 318 FDE 1,127 941 186

Southeast Denver

Program Demand Supply Gap Half‐day 312 311 1 Full‐day 703 414 289 FDE 859 570 290

Near Northeast Denver

Program Demand Supply Gap Half‐day 424 630 ‐206 Full‐day 1,512 1,266 246 FDE 1,725 1,581 144

Far Northeast Denver

Program Demand Supply Gap Half‐day 164 470 ‐306 Full‐day 868 367 501 FDE 949 602 347

slide-18
SLIDE 18

DRAFT

After accounting for additional DPS ECE capacity for 2013‐14, sub‐regions SE‐C and FNE‐B still have the highest need for ECE seats. Sub‐regions FNE‐C, SE‐A, and NW‐D have a remaining need (note: LeDoux and Escalante‐ Biggs will provide support to NW‐D and FNE‐C respectively)

I m pact of DPS Expansion on Regional Dem and Needs

19

DPS expansion site

229 FDE 200 FDE 115 FDE 106 FDE 105 FDE 68 FDE 98 FDE

slide-19
SLIDE 19

DRAFT Sum m ary Com m unity Process

  • 20 -

Application Review March

  • Based on ECE

Expansion Committee recommendations

  • Align with CPP

contract for ease

  • f use by Providers

Application Design Jan - Feb

  • 3 member review

panel per application

  • Utilize the rubric

designed by ECE Expansion committee

  • On-site reviews for

new applicants Approval May

  • Up to set number
  • f seats for a

provider

  • Seats approved

for specific locations within a provider

  • Cap the total

allocated seats to align with MLO funding Contract June

  • Align with CPP &

DPP rules for consistency

  • Compensation

decisions determined to align with CPP

Last fall, 3 meetings were held with ECE Community leaders to discuss the summary process for expansion, both at DPS locations as well as Community Providers. This is the

  • utput from that group.
slide-20
SLIDE 20

DRAFT Com m unity Process Highlights

  • Forty‐seven community providers applied
  • Requested 1,400 slots
  • Used Committee‐developed rubric with three readers to score

each application

  • Awarded 500 slots, or $1.5 million of mill levy funding, to

community based on scores and high need priority areas

  • DPS now contracts with 35 providers with CPP, Mill Levy and

ECARE funds for a total of $4.7M

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DRAFT Analytical Snapshot of Community Allocations

22

  • To assess overall need, we primarily looked at remaining unmet need in a sub‐region.
  • We used the first round wait list data and ECE to Kinder ratios as a secondary measure of demand.
  • Using these three data points, we were able to determine the weighted points (60% weight on remaining unmet demand, 20% on

wait lists, and 20% on ECE to Kinder ratios).

  • If a sub‐region did not have a remaining unmet demand, the region was considered as limited needs since demand for DPS

seats would not necessarily align with community provider demand.

Sub- Region Remaining Gap Remaining Gap Category Wait List Rank Number on Wait List Wait List Category 4YO: Kinder Rank # of Seats to Equity 4 YO: Kinder Category Weighted Points Average Seats Needed Weighted Need Category FNE-B 200 4 3 128 4 2 85 4 4.0 138 High SE-C 229 4 11 15 2 6 49 3 3.4 97 Moderately High NNE-E 98 2 2 135 4 3 81 4 2.8 105 Moderate SE-A 106 3 13 11 2 4 54 3 2.8 57 Moderate FNE-C 115 3 23 1 45 4 2.6 53 Moderate NW-D 105 3 10 23 2 7 52 2 2.6 60 Moderate NNE-F 9 1 7 30 3 5 56 3 1.8 32 Low NNE-D 8 1 1 431 4 9 30 2 1.8 156 Low NNE-C 22 1 9 12 3 10 6 1 1.4 13 Low NNE-B 14 1 12 46 2 11 3 1 1.2 21 Low SW-D 68 2 18 2 1 12

  • 7

1.4 21 Low NW-G 18 1 14 4 2 21

  • 11

1.0 4 Low NW-E

  • 1

4 39 4 8 24 2 1.2 21 Limited FNE-A

  • 114

5 266 4 16

  • 66

0.8 29 Limited SE-B

  • 58

6 60 3 20

  • 80

0.6

  • 26

Limited NW-B

  • 99

8 55 3 22

  • 59

0.6

  • 34

Limited SW-B 8 1 15 28 1 19

  • 56

0.8

  • 7

Limited SW-C 22 1 16 5 1 17

  • 24

0.8 1 Limited NNE-A

  • 92

17 46 1 13

  • 45

0.2

  • 30

Limited NW-C

  • 1

19 4 14

  • 24

0.0

  • 7

Limited NW-F

  • 46

20 5 18

  • 21

0.0

  • 21

Limited NW-A

  • 45

21 23

  • 50

0.0

  • 32

Limited SW-A

  • 29

22 8 15

  • 42

0.0

  • 21

Limited

slide-22
SLIDE 22

DRAFT Aw arded ECE Scholarships 9 6 % of seats to high/ excellent providers

23

Center Name Sub- Region Regional Need Proposed Allocations FDE Rating Rating Band 7 Little People Learning Center FNE-B High 10 38.3 High 17 Child Care Partners University NNE-E Moderate 20 33 High 1 Clayton Early Learning FNE-C Moderate 35 41 Excellent 11 Crayon Academy Learning Center NW-D Moderate 10 36 High 30 Early Success Academy FNE-C Moderate 10 25 Medium 1 MHM Lowry Montessori Early Learning Center NNE-E Moderate 20 41 Excellent 10 The Little Rascals Day Care FNE-C Moderate 1 37 High 7 Baby Haven SW-D Low 4 38 High 17 Sewall at Bird NNE-D Low 7 33 High 17 Sewall Child Development Center NNE-C Low 7 33 High 4 Warren Village NNE-C Low 9 40 Excellent 7 Auraria Early Learning Center NW-A Limited 10 38 High 4 Catholic Charities Garfield SW-A Limited 10 40 Excellent 4 Catholic Charities Kentucky SW-A Limited 10 40 Excellent 6 Early Excellence Program of Denver NNE-A Limited 10 39 High 12 Family Star Montessori School NW-B Limited 5 35.6 High 12 Hope Center NNE-A Limited 5 35.6 High 1 Little Friends Learning Center NW-F Limited 10 41 Excellent 1 MHM Rude Park Montessori Early Learning Center NW-C Limited 5 41 Excellent 1 MHM Sun Valley Montessori Early Learning Center NW-C Limited 5 41 Excellent 1 MHM Westwood Montessori Early Learning Center SW-A Limited 10 41 Excellent 12 Monarch Montessori FNE-A Limited 15 35 High 37 Pioneer Charter School NNE-A Limited 1 20 Medium 17 Sewall at CEE SE-B Limited 7 33 High 17 Sewall at Doull SW-B Limited 7 33 High 17 Sewall at Smedley NW-F Limited 7 33 High

slide-23
SLIDE 23

DRAFT Future Considerations

  • Monitor enrollment levels at both DPS and community sites to ensure mill

levy awards are being fully utilized

  • Reassess highest needs sub‐regions for further expansion through both

DPS facilities as well as engaging with community providers to encourage their expansion into these regions, potentially including funding support

  • Implement ECE program accountability to tie quality ratings to student
  • utcomes in kindergarten and beyond

24