Description
Description tell about aps school turnaround strategy school turnaround strategy board of education meeting.
APS School Turnaround Strategy APS School Turnaround Strategy
Board of Education Meeting
October 5, 2015
Agenda
Process to arrive at a school turnaround strategy
What the data says about our schools
How we meet schools' needs to best serve our children: emerging themes How we meet schools needs to best serve our children: emerging themes
1 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Opportunity School District Overview
The Opportunity School District would create a statewide school district with the authority
to take over chronically underperforming schools across the state of Georgia
Timeline for the creation of the OSD
• GA General Assembly passed resolution enabling a constitutional amendment (Complete)
• Majority of Georgia voters must approve referendum to create the OSD in November 2016
• OSD could then begin to take over as many as 20 schools for the 2017-18 school year
• Schools are eligible for the OSD with three years of consecutive CCRPI scores under 60 g y
• Once included in OSD, schools remain for at least five years but no more than ten years
Potential State Intervention Models
• Direct management of the school by the OSD
• Shared governance of the school by the OSD and the local board of education
• Reconstitution of the school as an OSD charter school Reconstitution of the school as an OSD charter school
• Closure of the school which is not enrolled at full capacity (school closure shall be the
intervention of last resort)
2 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
If the OSD was approved today, 26 low-performing APS schools would be eligible
Opportunity School District and Atlanta Public Schools
APS must demonstrate its commitment and capability to turnaround our lowest performing
schools over the next 12-18 months not only to maintain local control of our schools but most schools over the next 12-18 months, not only to maintain local control of our schools but most
importantly to provide the high quality education all kids in Atlanta deserve
APS is acting urgently to identify the best strategy to turn around low-performing schools and g g y y gy g
keep them under local control
• APS is committed to providing all Atlanta children with access to a quality education
• APS supports local control of education
To date, APS has taken proactive steps toward turning around our schools including adopting a
Charter System operating model, making strategic hires, expanding social and emotional
learning and implementing APS's five-year strategic plan learning, and implementing APS s five year strategic plan
Since August 11th, APS has been focused on a School Turnaround Strategy Project with the
support of The Boston Consulting Group. Through this project, APS is gathering community and
educator input and developing an aggressive, targeted, research-based strategy for turning
around APS's lowest performing schools
3 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Process to arrive at a school turnaround strategy
Ongoing APS work
After October 6
8-week engagement with The Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
Aug 11 – Oct 6
We are in the final week of an 8-week strategy project supporting
APS's turnaround effort
Develop district turnaround strategy,
building on district's existing work
Develop school-by- school
turnaround strategy
After the initial 8-week
engagement the district will: APS s turnaround effort
Over the course of the project, we have:
• Engaged stakeholders to gain their perspectives on the current
engagement, the district will:
• Assess school needs and
context andpartner with
schools and communities in
g g g p p
state and gather input on potential strategies:
– Interviews with principals, parents, and other community members
– School-based conversations with parents, teachers, and students
– Engagement of the wider community via Community Advisory
schools and communities in
matching strategies with
schools
• Continue dialogue with the
g g y y y
Committee, Community Town Hall, Community survey, and public
focus group
• Conducted data analysis of CCRPI scores to help understand
current performance
• Continue dialogue with the
broader community
• Continue existing efforts and
begintaking near term
current performance
• Synthesized external research on turnaround strategies
These inputs as well as ideas from a joint APS-BCG Working Group
begin taking near-term
actions that are part of the
strategy
4 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
and Steering Committee inform the district's strategy, to be shared by
the superintendent on October 8
Context for presentation of data
The following pages offer a segmentation of APS schools
1
based on CCRPI, detail CCRPI
by cluster, and benchmark APS CCRPI scores against all schools in the state by cluster, and benchmark APS CCRPI scores against all schools in the state
Segment Criteria for inclusion
OSD eligible
2
High Risk
Three consecutive years under 60
Two of three years under 60
High
g
Risk
Trending up
y
Two of three years under 70
Three-year improvement trend; one year 70
R
I
S
K
Trending up
Safe
St
Three-year improvement trend; one year 70
Three years over 65 and at least one over 70
Th 75 Strong Three years over 75
Low
5 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately. 2. OSD-eligible based on current
data and the current CCRPI formula. Both will change before actual OSD eligibility is calculated
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Overall APS breakdown by segment for cluster schools
1
80
Does not include CrimHigh Key takeaways
73
60
10
4
5
Does not include Crim High
or Forest Hills Middle & High
(non-traditional programs)
28 of 49 (57%) elementary schools
are OSD eligible or high risk
• ES underperformance suggests
Key takeaways
60
5
10
18
p gg
MS/HS could get worse with time
if nothing is done
All clusters except one have at
40
26
p
least one OSD-eligible
2
or high-
risk school
• 11 of 14 Safe or Strong schools
are in Grady or North Atlanta
20
26
Elementary
High
Middle
y
clusters
44 of 73 (60%) of APS schools fall
into OSD eligible or high risk
0
All Strong Safe Trending Risk High Risk OSD
High
g g
• Turnaround strategy could be
required for many schools
6 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately. 2. OSD-eligible based on
current data and the current CCRPI formula. Both will change before actual OSDeligibility is calculated
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Source:http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
Cluster performance shows schools at risk in most clusters
1
10
9
10
9
1
6 4
8
9
7
8 8
9
1
6
6 4
3 1
3
6
6 6 6
1
3
2
3
1 1
4
1 1
3 3
3
4
4
4 4
3
1 1 1 3
3 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
3
0
2
0
Therrell Single Sex
Academies
Washington J ackson Grady South ATL North ATL Mays Douglass Carver
Strong Safe Trend Risk High OSD
7 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
g g
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Source:http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
2014 CCRPI components shown as statewide percentile
APS Cluster Elementary Schools
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Morningside Elementary School Grady E 100th 98th 100th 16th 97th
Jackson Elementary School North Atlanta E 97 95 100 34 96
Brandon Elementary School North Atlanta E 97 88 100 21 94
Lin Elementary School Grady E 96 85 95 39 93
Springdale Park Elementary School Grady E 98 62 95 40 93
West Manor Elementary School Mays E 81 78 55 94 81
100th
LEGEND
L
E
West Manor Elementary School Mays E 81 78 55 94 81
Smith Elementary School North Atlanta E 92 52 77 49 80
Garden Hills Elementary School North Atlanta E 64 43 92 89 79
Woodson Primary School Douglass E 66 NA NA 14 75
Rivers Elementary School North Atlanta E 72 62 66 41 63
Burgess-Peterson Elementary School Jackson E 56 76 44 89 62
Venetian Hills Elementary School Washington E 29 98 92 39 58
Deerwood Academy School Therrell E 37 38 88 54 53
Heritage Academy Elementary South Atlanta E 26 60 92 19 44
S
T
A
T
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
I
L
Adamsville Primary School Mays E 25 NA NA 14 36
Bolton Academy North Atlanta E 34 32 77 19 36
Hutchinson Elementary School South Atlanta E 16 17 92 39 32
Cleveland Elementary School South Atlanta E 12 99 83 14 32
Cascade Elementary School Mays E 22 98 17 46 29
Whitefoord Elementary School Jackson E 17 11 66 39 23
Beecher Hills Elementary School Mays E 30 34 3 68 22
The John Hope-Charles Walter Hill Elementary Grady E 10 32 88 14 21
All APS El t S h l E 29 41 17 14 20
1st
All APS Elementary Schools E 29 41 17 14 20
M. A. Jones Elementary School Washington E 24 15 7 62 17
Parkside Elementary School Jackson E 22 76 7 14 15
Bazoline E. Usher/Collier Heights Elementary Douglass E 5 80 44 19 11
Humphries Elementary School South Atlanta E 7 46 32 15 9
Fickett Elementary School Therrell E 16 28 7 19 9
Kimberly Elementary School Therrell E 7 43 32 8 9
Continental Colony Elementary School Therrell E 9 10 26 14 7
Dobbs Elementary School South Atlanta E 5 13 32 24 6 Dobbs Elementary School South Atlanta E 5 13 32 24 6
Scott Elementary School Douglass E 4 2 66 14 6
Dunbar Elementary School Jackson E 3 23 55 8 5
Toomer Elementary School Jackson E 11 10 7 8 5
F. L. Stanton Elementary School Douglass E 5 6 26 8 4
Towns Elementary School Douglass E 5 7 17 14 4
Finch Elementary Carver E 5 7 12 14 3
Peyton Forest Elementary School Mays E 7 8 2 28 3
Boyd Elementary School Douglass E 2 14 32 8 3
2014
CCRPI
score
60
y y g
Gideons Elementary School Carver E 4 11 12 14 3
Benteen Elementary School Jackson E 5 18 3 14 3
Miles Intermediate School Mays E 5 30 2 8 2
Slater Elementary School Carver E 2 13 12 14 2
Bethune Elementary School Washington E 3 1 17 14 2
Fain Elementary School Douglass E 4 8 2 8 2
Grove Park Intermediate School Douglass E 2 3 7 14 1
Thomasville Heights Elementary School Carver E 1 11 26 8 1
P k El t S h l C E 2 2 3 8 1
60
8 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Note: Does not include charter or non-traditional schools; CCRPI line shows schools which had below 60 score for 2014 ONLY ?not three consecutive years
Source: 2014 GA DoE CCRPI component data
Perkerson Elementary School Carver E 2 2 3 8 1
Connally Elementary School Washington E 1 4 7 8 1
D. H. Stanton Elementary School Jackson E 2 1 2 14 1
2014 CCRPI components shown as statewide percentile
APS Cluster Middle & High Schools
100th
LEGEND
L
E
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Inman Middle School Grady M 88th 87th 66th 44th 78th
Sutton Middle School North Atlanta M 80 70 55 24 63
All Schools M 31 52 44 8 27
CSKYWA Middle School CSKYWA M 20 65 44 32 27
S
T
A
T
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
I
L
King Middle School Jackson M 16 54 66 32 26
Brown Middle School Washington M 17 70 77 8 26
Long Middle School South Atlanta M 11 41 66 32 21
Bunche Middle School Therrell M 17 36 32 14 16
Harper?Archer Middle School Douglass M 8 34 77 8 16
Price Middle School Carver M 9 67 44 8 13
The Best Academy at Benjamin S Carson BEST M 8 24 26 14 7
1st
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Early College High School at Carver Carver H 79th 92th 93th 100th 97th
The Best Academy at Benjamin S. Carson BEST M 8 24 26 14 7
Young Middle School Mays M 15 13 7 8 7
Sylvan Hills Middle School Carver M 10 30 7 8 6
Booker T. Washington ? Early College Washington H 35 58 47 95 54
North Atlanta High School North Atlanta H 44 58 77 21 47
The School of the Arts at Carver Carver H 11 88 93 66 44
South Atlanta Law and Social Justice School South Atlanta H 18 92 89 34 43
South Atlanta School of Health and Medical South Atlanta H 17 82 77 80 41
Grady High School Grady H 47 20 77 14 41
South Atlanta School of Computer Animation South Atlanta H 9 82 58 66 26
2014
Therrell School of Health and Science Therrell H 6 80 84 46 25
Therrell School of Engineering Therrell H 12 60 58 51 25
The Best Academy High School BEST H 13 54 47 39 22
CSKYWA High School CSKYWA H 19 60 2 51 14
All Schools H 12 47 36 8 14
School of Health Sciences at Carver Carver H 8 93 13 22 13
Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. High School Jackson H 9 67 26 8 11
2014
CCRPI
score
60
Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. High School Jackson H 9 67 26 8 11
Booker T. Washington High School ? Health Washington H 4 76 36 19 8
Mays High School Mays H 11 10 26 8 8
Booker T. Washington High School ? Banking Washington H 8 67 4 28 7
Therrell School of Law Therrell H 5 80 8 32 7
Douglass High School Douglass H 4 34 13 8 4
School of Technology at Carver Carver H 2 20 36 8 3
9 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Note: Does not include charter or non-traditional schools; CCRPI line shows schools which had below 60 score for 2014 ONLY ?not three consecutive years
Source: 2014 GA DoE CCRPI component data
Turnaround strategy will be the product of several inputs
• Build upon existing
k tAPS
• What has worked
l h ?
• How do stakeholders
i / t t ti ?
Current APS efforts External research Stakeholders
• What are APS turn-
d d i ll?
Beating the odds
work at APS
• Get input from district
leadership
elsewhere?
• What does research/
evidence say?
view/react to options? arounds doing well?
• What can we learn
from them?
S
T
R
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES
Evaluation of ideas
•Theoryof change
D i i it i
Ideas
R
A
T
E
G
Y
Theory of change
•Strength of evidence
•Strategic fit
•Level of support
•What you needto believe
•Decision criteria
•Guiding principles
•Engagement plan
Y
CURRENT PERFORMANCE, NEEDS & ROOT
CAUSES BY GRADE SPAN/CLUSTER/COMMUNITY
What you need to believe
• Analyze data to identify
trends/patterns to inform strategy
• Hear from educators, parents,
students & community
• Identify cross cluster and cluster
• Learn from leaders' experience
within and outside APS
• Understand cross cluster and
Data analysis Educators/communities District leadership input
10 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
specific needs/root cause issues cluster distinctions and needs
Several major themes emerging from these inputs, informing
our strategy
1
• Low-performing schools lack consistent high-quality classroom instruction
Instruction
2
• Low-performing schools have large numbers of students who are behind; we must
provide additional instructional supports to help them catch up
• ManyAPS principals are not equipped with necessary turnaround expertise; APS
School
leadership
3
• Many APS principals are not equipped with necessary turnaround expertise; APS
must both support the current team and recruit additional turnaround leaders
• Must build strong bench of future leaders by investing in teacher leaders and APs
• High quality classroominstruction is central to turnaround Many teachers in
Teachers
3
• High-quality classroom instruction is central to turnaround. Many teachers in
low-performing APS schools need a solid foundation of support from the district,
school administrators, and coaches to improve
• APS must have a strategy to attract and retain talented educators
Students
engaged and
ready to learn
4
• Many kids in low-performing schools have non-academic needs (e.g. mental
health, nutrition, housing, safety) that keep them from being ready to learn
– Schools, city services, and community partners must do more to help
Urgency of the
i i
• Given the number of schools with dire student need and very low performance,
something more than programmatic changes may be needed
– Structural changes made elsewhere include school reconstitution,
lid i d i i h fi h h l
5
11 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
situation consolidation, and partnering with non-profit charter school operators
• APS must be thoughtful about any structural changes and work with
communities, taking into account school context and the need for stability
Appendix Appendix
12 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Administration's guiding principles for determining the
turnaround strategy
I th h di t d/ i di t
The strategy we choose must . . .
Improve, through direct and/or indirect means:
• The quality of instruction provided to students
• Students' experience in school, increasing their engagement and hope
Help low-performing schools to make significant progress in both the short term (next 18 months) and long term
Demonstrate to the state APS's commitment and ability to improve the quality of students' outcomes and
educational experience, thereby reducing the likelihood of OSD takeover
Increase equity in the system
Include families communities and staff as partners Include families, communities, and staff as partners
Be sensitive to differences in communities' and schools' assets, needs, and current situation
Offer a balance of proven strategies and innovative solutions
Be determined and implemented based on an open and transparent process
13 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Include a plan for implementation that is sustained, sufficiently resourced, and high-quality
Components of CCRPI broken into four categories
Elementary Middle High
Historical CCRPI formula:
• Content mastery
• Post-elementary school
readiness
• Content mastery
• Post-high school
readiness
• Content mastery
• Post-high school
readiness
y g
Achievement
• Predictor for high school
graduation
• Student growth
• Graduation rate
• Student growth
• Graduation rate
• Student growth
Progress
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
g
Gap
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
Challenge
points points points
CCRPI formula will change due to calibration required by new
Milestones test administered during SY2015 Initial changes
14 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Source:http://www.gadoe.org
Milestones test administered during SY2015. Initial changes
recently announced place higher weight on Progress
doc_706619480.pdf
Description tell about aps school turnaround strategy school turnaround strategy board of education meeting.
APS School Turnaround Strategy APS School Turnaround Strategy
Board of Education Meeting
October 5, 2015
Agenda
Process to arrive at a school turnaround strategy
What the data says about our schools
How we meet schools' needs to best serve our children: emerging themes How we meet schools needs to best serve our children: emerging themes
1 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Opportunity School District Overview
The Opportunity School District would create a statewide school district with the authority
to take over chronically underperforming schools across the state of Georgia
Timeline for the creation of the OSD
• GA General Assembly passed resolution enabling a constitutional amendment (Complete)
• Majority of Georgia voters must approve referendum to create the OSD in November 2016
• OSD could then begin to take over as many as 20 schools for the 2017-18 school year
• Schools are eligible for the OSD with three years of consecutive CCRPI scores under 60 g y
• Once included in OSD, schools remain for at least five years but no more than ten years
Potential State Intervention Models
• Direct management of the school by the OSD
• Shared governance of the school by the OSD and the local board of education
• Reconstitution of the school as an OSD charter school Reconstitution of the school as an OSD charter school
• Closure of the school which is not enrolled at full capacity (school closure shall be the
intervention of last resort)
2 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
If the OSD was approved today, 26 low-performing APS schools would be eligible
Opportunity School District and Atlanta Public Schools
APS must demonstrate its commitment and capability to turnaround our lowest performing
schools over the next 12-18 months not only to maintain local control of our schools but most schools over the next 12-18 months, not only to maintain local control of our schools but most
importantly to provide the high quality education all kids in Atlanta deserve
APS is acting urgently to identify the best strategy to turn around low-performing schools and g g y y gy g
keep them under local control
• APS is committed to providing all Atlanta children with access to a quality education
• APS supports local control of education
To date, APS has taken proactive steps toward turning around our schools including adopting a
Charter System operating model, making strategic hires, expanding social and emotional
learning and implementing APS's five-year strategic plan learning, and implementing APS s five year strategic plan
Since August 11th, APS has been focused on a School Turnaround Strategy Project with the
support of The Boston Consulting Group. Through this project, APS is gathering community and
educator input and developing an aggressive, targeted, research-based strategy for turning
around APS's lowest performing schools
3 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Process to arrive at a school turnaround strategy
Ongoing APS work
After October 6
8-week engagement with The Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
Aug 11 – Oct 6
We are in the final week of an 8-week strategy project supporting
APS's turnaround effort
Develop district turnaround strategy,
building on district's existing work
Develop school-by- school
turnaround strategy
After the initial 8-week
engagement the district will: APS s turnaround effort
Over the course of the project, we have:
• Engaged stakeholders to gain their perspectives on the current
engagement, the district will:
• Assess school needs and
context andpartner with
schools and communities in
g g g p p
state and gather input on potential strategies:
– Interviews with principals, parents, and other community members
– School-based conversations with parents, teachers, and students
– Engagement of the wider community via Community Advisory
schools and communities in
matching strategies with
schools
• Continue dialogue with the
g g y y y
Committee, Community Town Hall, Community survey, and public
focus group
• Conducted data analysis of CCRPI scores to help understand
current performance
• Continue dialogue with the
broader community
• Continue existing efforts and
begintaking near term
current performance
• Synthesized external research on turnaround strategies
These inputs as well as ideas from a joint APS-BCG Working Group
begin taking near-term
actions that are part of the
strategy
4 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
and Steering Committee inform the district's strategy, to be shared by
the superintendent on October 8
Context for presentation of data
The following pages offer a segmentation of APS schools
1
based on CCRPI, detail CCRPI
by cluster, and benchmark APS CCRPI scores against all schools in the state by cluster, and benchmark APS CCRPI scores against all schools in the state
Segment Criteria for inclusion
OSD eligible
2
High Risk
Three consecutive years under 60
Two of three years under 60
High
g
Risk
Trending up
y
Two of three years under 70
Three-year improvement trend; one year 70
R
I
S
K
Trending up
Safe
St
Three-year improvement trend; one year 70
Three years over 65 and at least one over 70
Th 75 Strong Three years over 75
Low
5 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately. 2. OSD-eligible based on current
data and the current CCRPI formula. Both will change before actual OSD eligibility is calculated
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Overall APS breakdown by segment for cluster schools
1
80
Does not include CrimHigh Key takeaways
73
60
10
4
5
Does not include Crim High
or Forest Hills Middle & High
(non-traditional programs)
28 of 49 (57%) elementary schools
are OSD eligible or high risk
• ES underperformance suggests
Key takeaways
60
5
10
18
p gg
MS/HS could get worse with time
if nothing is done
All clusters except one have at
40
26
p
least one OSD-eligible
2
or high-
risk school
• 11 of 14 Safe or Strong schools
are in Grady or North Atlanta
20
26
Elementary
High
Middle
y
clusters
44 of 73 (60%) of APS schools fall
into OSD eligible or high risk
0
All Strong Safe Trending Risk High Risk OSD
High
g g
• Turnaround strategy could be
required for many schools
6 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately. 2. OSD-eligible based on
current data and the current CCRPI formula. Both will change before actual OSDeligibility is calculated
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Source:http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
Cluster performance shows schools at risk in most clusters
1
10
9
10
9
1
6 4
8
9
7
8 8
9
1
6
6 4
3 1
3
6
6 6 6
1
3
2
3
1 1
4
1 1
3 3
3
4
4
4 4
3
1 1 1 3
3 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
3
0
2
0
Therrell Single Sex
Academies
Washington J ackson Grady South ATL North ATL Mays Douglass Carver
Strong Safe Trend Risk High OSD
7 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
g g
1. Analysis includes cluster schools plus BEST and CSKYWA; does not include charter or non-traditional programs, which are analyzed separately
Note: Consolidated high schools (Carver, South ATL, Therrell and Washington) are included as lower of consolidated group/pair; consistent with GA DOE guidance
Note: Analysis updated based on revised segmentation methodology as of 9/22/2015 (original data presented on 8/27/2015)
Source:http://www.gadoe.org/CCRPI/Pages/default.aspx
2014 CCRPI components shown as statewide percentile
APS Cluster Elementary Schools
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Morningside Elementary School Grady E 100th 98th 100th 16th 97th
Jackson Elementary School North Atlanta E 97 95 100 34 96
Brandon Elementary School North Atlanta E 97 88 100 21 94
Lin Elementary School Grady E 96 85 95 39 93
Springdale Park Elementary School Grady E 98 62 95 40 93
West Manor Elementary School Mays E 81 78 55 94 81
100th
LEGEND
L
E
West Manor Elementary School Mays E 81 78 55 94 81
Smith Elementary School North Atlanta E 92 52 77 49 80
Garden Hills Elementary School North Atlanta E 64 43 92 89 79
Woodson Primary School Douglass E 66 NA NA 14 75
Rivers Elementary School North Atlanta E 72 62 66 41 63
Burgess-Peterson Elementary School Jackson E 56 76 44 89 62
Venetian Hills Elementary School Washington E 29 98 92 39 58
Deerwood Academy School Therrell E 37 38 88 54 53
Heritage Academy Elementary South Atlanta E 26 60 92 19 44
S
T
A
T
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
I
L
Adamsville Primary School Mays E 25 NA NA 14 36
Bolton Academy North Atlanta E 34 32 77 19 36
Hutchinson Elementary School South Atlanta E 16 17 92 39 32
Cleveland Elementary School South Atlanta E 12 99 83 14 32
Cascade Elementary School Mays E 22 98 17 46 29
Whitefoord Elementary School Jackson E 17 11 66 39 23
Beecher Hills Elementary School Mays E 30 34 3 68 22
The John Hope-Charles Walter Hill Elementary Grady E 10 32 88 14 21
All APS El t S h l E 29 41 17 14 20
1st
All APS Elementary Schools E 29 41 17 14 20
M. A. Jones Elementary School Washington E 24 15 7 62 17
Parkside Elementary School Jackson E 22 76 7 14 15
Bazoline E. Usher/Collier Heights Elementary Douglass E 5 80 44 19 11
Humphries Elementary School South Atlanta E 7 46 32 15 9
Fickett Elementary School Therrell E 16 28 7 19 9
Kimberly Elementary School Therrell E 7 43 32 8 9
Continental Colony Elementary School Therrell E 9 10 26 14 7
Dobbs Elementary School South Atlanta E 5 13 32 24 6 Dobbs Elementary School South Atlanta E 5 13 32 24 6
Scott Elementary School Douglass E 4 2 66 14 6
Dunbar Elementary School Jackson E 3 23 55 8 5
Toomer Elementary School Jackson E 11 10 7 8 5
F. L. Stanton Elementary School Douglass E 5 6 26 8 4
Towns Elementary School Douglass E 5 7 17 14 4
Finch Elementary Carver E 5 7 12 14 3
Peyton Forest Elementary School Mays E 7 8 2 28 3
Boyd Elementary School Douglass E 2 14 32 8 3
2014
CCRPI
score
60
y y g
Gideons Elementary School Carver E 4 11 12 14 3
Benteen Elementary School Jackson E 5 18 3 14 3
Miles Intermediate School Mays E 5 30 2 8 2
Slater Elementary School Carver E 2 13 12 14 2
Bethune Elementary School Washington E 3 1 17 14 2
Fain Elementary School Douglass E 4 8 2 8 2
Grove Park Intermediate School Douglass E 2 3 7 14 1
Thomasville Heights Elementary School Carver E 1 11 26 8 1
P k El t S h l C E 2 2 3 8 1
60
8 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Note: Does not include charter or non-traditional schools; CCRPI line shows schools which had below 60 score for 2014 ONLY ?not three consecutive years
Source: 2014 GA DoE CCRPI component data
Perkerson Elementary School Carver E 2 2 3 8 1
Connally Elementary School Washington E 1 4 7 8 1
D. H. Stanton Elementary School Jackson E 2 1 2 14 1
2014 CCRPI components shown as statewide percentile
APS Cluster Middle & High Schools
100th
LEGEND
L
E
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Inman Middle School Grady M 88th 87th 66th 44th 78th
Sutton Middle School North Atlanta M 80 70 55 24 63
All Schools M 31 52 44 8 27
CSKYWA Middle School CSKYWA M 20 65 44 32 27
S
T
A
T
E
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
I
L
King Middle School Jackson M 16 54 66 32 26
Brown Middle School Washington M 17 70 77 8 26
Long Middle School South Atlanta M 11 41 66 32 21
Bunche Middle School Therrell M 17 36 32 14 16
Harper?Archer Middle School Douglass M 8 34 77 8 16
Price Middle School Carver M 9 67 44 8 13
The Best Academy at Benjamin S Carson BEST M 8 24 26 14 7
1st
School Name Cluster Grade Cluster Achievement Progress Gap Challenge CCRPI
Early College High School at Carver Carver H 79th 92th 93th 100th 97th
The Best Academy at Benjamin S. Carson BEST M 8 24 26 14 7
Young Middle School Mays M 15 13 7 8 7
Sylvan Hills Middle School Carver M 10 30 7 8 6
Booker T. Washington ? Early College Washington H 35 58 47 95 54
North Atlanta High School North Atlanta H 44 58 77 21 47
The School of the Arts at Carver Carver H 11 88 93 66 44
South Atlanta Law and Social Justice School South Atlanta H 18 92 89 34 43
South Atlanta School of Health and Medical South Atlanta H 17 82 77 80 41
Grady High School Grady H 47 20 77 14 41
South Atlanta School of Computer Animation South Atlanta H 9 82 58 66 26
2014
Therrell School of Health and Science Therrell H 6 80 84 46 25
Therrell School of Engineering Therrell H 12 60 58 51 25
The Best Academy High School BEST H 13 54 47 39 22
CSKYWA High School CSKYWA H 19 60 2 51 14
All Schools H 12 47 36 8 14
School of Health Sciences at Carver Carver H 8 93 13 22 13
Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. High School Jackson H 9 67 26 8 11
2014
CCRPI
score
60
Maynard H. Jackson, Jr. High School Jackson H 9 67 26 8 11
Booker T. Washington High School ? Health Washington H 4 76 36 19 8
Mays High School Mays H 11 10 26 8 8
Booker T. Washington High School ? Banking Washington H 8 67 4 28 7
Therrell School of Law Therrell H 5 80 8 32 7
Douglass High School Douglass H 4 34 13 8 4
School of Technology at Carver Carver H 2 20 36 8 3
9 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Note: Does not include charter or non-traditional schools; CCRPI line shows schools which had below 60 score for 2014 ONLY ?not three consecutive years
Source: 2014 GA DoE CCRPI component data
Turnaround strategy will be the product of several inputs
• Build upon existing
k tAPS
• What has worked
l h ?
• How do stakeholders
i / t t ti ?
Current APS efforts External research Stakeholders
• What are APS turn-
d d i ll?
Beating the odds
work at APS
• Get input from district
leadership
elsewhere?
• What does research/
evidence say?
view/react to options? arounds doing well?
• What can we learn
from them?
S
T
R
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES
Evaluation of ideas
•Theoryof change
D i i it i
Ideas
R
A
T
E
G
Y
Theory of change
•Strength of evidence
•Strategic fit
•Level of support
•What you needto believe
•Decision criteria
•Guiding principles
•Engagement plan
Y
CURRENT PERFORMANCE, NEEDS & ROOT
CAUSES BY GRADE SPAN/CLUSTER/COMMUNITY
What you need to believe
• Analyze data to identify
trends/patterns to inform strategy
• Hear from educators, parents,
students & community
• Identify cross cluster and cluster
• Learn from leaders' experience
within and outside APS
• Understand cross cluster and
Data analysis Educators/communities District leadership input
10 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
specific needs/root cause issues cluster distinctions and needs
Several major themes emerging from these inputs, informing
our strategy
1
• Low-performing schools lack consistent high-quality classroom instruction
Instruction
2
• Low-performing schools have large numbers of students who are behind; we must
provide additional instructional supports to help them catch up
• ManyAPS principals are not equipped with necessary turnaround expertise; APS
School
leadership
3
• Many APS principals are not equipped with necessary turnaround expertise; APS
must both support the current team and recruit additional turnaround leaders
• Must build strong bench of future leaders by investing in teacher leaders and APs
• High quality classroominstruction is central to turnaround Many teachers in
Teachers
3
• High-quality classroom instruction is central to turnaround. Many teachers in
low-performing APS schools need a solid foundation of support from the district,
school administrators, and coaches to improve
• APS must have a strategy to attract and retain talented educators
Students
engaged and
ready to learn
4
• Many kids in low-performing schools have non-academic needs (e.g. mental
health, nutrition, housing, safety) that keep them from being ready to learn
– Schools, city services, and community partners must do more to help
Urgency of the
i i
• Given the number of schools with dire student need and very low performance,
something more than programmatic changes may be needed
– Structural changes made elsewhere include school reconstitution,
lid i d i i h fi h h l
5
11 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
situation consolidation, and partnering with non-profit charter school operators
• APS must be thoughtful about any structural changes and work with
communities, taking into account school context and the need for stability
Appendix Appendix
12 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Administration's guiding principles for determining the
turnaround strategy
I th h di t d/ i di t
The strategy we choose must . . .
Improve, through direct and/or indirect means:
• The quality of instruction provided to students
• Students' experience in school, increasing their engagement and hope
Help low-performing schools to make significant progress in both the short term (next 18 months) and long term
Demonstrate to the state APS's commitment and ability to improve the quality of students' outcomes and
educational experience, thereby reducing the likelihood of OSD takeover
Increase equity in the system
Include families communities and staff as partners Include families, communities, and staff as partners
Be sensitive to differences in communities' and schools' assets, needs, and current situation
Offer a balance of proven strategies and innovative solutions
Be determined and implemented based on an open and transparent process
13 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Include a plan for implementation that is sustained, sufficiently resourced, and high-quality
Components of CCRPI broken into four categories
Elementary Middle High
Historical CCRPI formula:
• Content mastery
• Post-elementary school
readiness
• Content mastery
• Post-high school
readiness
• Content mastery
• Post-high school
readiness
y g
Achievement
• Predictor for high school
graduation
• Student growth
• Graduation rate
• Student growth
• Graduation rate
• Student growth
Progress
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
percentiles
• Gap size
• Gap change
g
Gap
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
• ED/EL/SWD
performance points
• Exceeding the bar
Challenge
points points points
CCRPI formula will change due to calibration required by new
Milestones test administered during SY2015 Initial changes
14 20151005_Board of education meeting_vUpdated.pptx
Source:http://www.gadoe.org
Milestones test administered during SY2015. Initial changes
recently announced place higher weight on Progress
doc_706619480.pdf