Draft—do not cite or disseminate Denver Public Schools: Leveraging System Transformation to Improve Student Results March, 2017 © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2014 Draft—do not cite or disseminate Education Resource Strategies (ERS) is a non-profit organization dedicated to transforming how urban school systems organize resources (people, time, technology, and money) so that every school succeeds for every student. © 2017 Education ResourceInc., Strategies. All rights reserved. © Education Resource Strategies, 2014 Over the last 10 years, ERS has worked closely with the nation’s largest school systems to improve resource use Rochester Syracuse Saint Paul Michigan Sacramento Chicago Indianapolis Cleveland Oakland Cincinnati California Los Angeles District work State work 2015-16 partners Recent partners Buffalo Santa Fe Tulsa Albuquerque Tennessee Nashville Philadelphia Washington, D.C. Boston Providence Waterbury, CT New Haven, CT New York City Newark Baltimore Prince George’s County, MD Knox County Charlotte-Mecklenburg Atlanta Georgia Duval County Austin Aldine Lake County Palm Bach County Georgia Districts Fulton County Hall County Vidalia City Treutlen County Marietta City 3 What is our history with DPS?  ERS has partnered with DPS over the past 8 years on a number of paid engagement  ERS is currently engaged with DPS in two areas:  Teacher compensation workshops  New teacher case studies with DPS-specific supplement  The work we are reviewing today was funded by the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation as a case study 4 Why school systems? EFFECTIVE DISTRICTS EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE TEACHING SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS Coherent systems that give schools the flexibility, capacity, and support they need Schools that deliberately manage talent, time, and money around a clear instructional model High-quality instruction that is aligned with standards Every student succeeds Do your district’s structures and policies maximize the enabling conditions for excellent schools? Are practices and resource use aligned with high performing strategies at every school? Are the structures in place to improve instructional quality and alignment? 5 What is the School System 2020 Diagnostic? EFFECTIVE DISTRICTS EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS EFFECTIVE TEACHING SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS Coherent systems that give schools the flexibility, capacity, and support they need Schools that deliberately manage talent, time, and money around a clear instructional model High-quality instruction that is aligned with standards Every student succeeds Do your district’s structures and policies maximize the enabling conditions for excellent schools? Are practices and resource use aligned with high performing strategies at every school? Are the structures in place to improve instructional quality and alignment?  District Impact: To help district leaders answer these questions and identify and track changes to System Conditions and Resource Use that lead to improved student achievement  Field Building: To build a data set of where districts are along this spectrum, to highlight best practices and ultimately to demonstrate that creating system conditions that promote the strategic use of resources in districts and schools drives improved student outcomes 6 School System 20/20 identifies key transformational levers across seven areas of district activity Teaching Standards and Instruction School Design • Broad, but high level • Research-based • Includes qualitative and quantitative measures Partners • Benchmarks against best practice and other districts Funding School Support Leadership 7 Looking at this information helps us to understand:  How does performance growth in DPS compare to other districts in Colorado and nationwide?  What actions over the past five years have driven changes in system conditions, resource use, and student outcomes?  How does DPS compare to other leading districts and research-based best practice?  Where should DPS target future investments?  What can other district leaders and policy makers learn from DPS’ experience? 8 What we heard from you  Current pace of progress feels too slow and growing achievement gaps are concerning  Demographic shifts are driving inequities and raising questions of how to best serve the changing needs of all students in all schools  PARCC has complicated the interpretation of performance trends  Actions so far have largely been system-wide, raising the question of how best to target support to higher-need schools and students 9 performance story According to Stanford NCES comparison data, DPS had the second highest growth of any district >25K nationwide between 2009-10 and 2012-13 Denver Average Grade Equivalent Unit Growth 2009-2013, Against Large Districts Growth in Grade Equivalent Units, Averaged Across Grades, 2009-2013 1.5 1 Denver Lincoln, NE Washington, UT Fremont, CA Davidson, TN Anaheim, CA 0.5 0 Washington DC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% -0.5 -1 -1.5 District Percent FRL Averaged across grades and subjects, DPS performance improved almost an entire grade level, from 1.5 grade levels behind in 09-10 to .5 grade levels behind in 12-13. Stanford Educational Data Archive, NCES; comparison includes all districts with more than 25,000 students, data only available 2009-2013 11 …and within Colorado DPS vs. Colorado % Proficient & Advanced TCAP Reading CMAS PARCC Assessment 80% 70% 60% 50% 70% 69% 54% 45% 41% 36% 40% 30% 20% DPS Percent Proficient State Percent Proficient (Excluding DPS) 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Colorado Department of Education, Achievement Percentile Rank Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 12 Proficiency increased across all subgroups ELA Percent Proficient- all tested grades 60% 54% 50% 46% ELA Percent Proficient 44% 40% 42% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 All Students 2008 FRL 2009 ELL Source: CDE website-DPS student enrollment & performance data, 2004-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Non-White 13 And across both charter and district-run schools ELA Percent Proficient by School Type 70% ELA Percent Proficient 60% 57% 54% 51% 50% 45% 43% 40% 38% 42% 30% 31% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 Charter 2007 2008 Traditional Source: CDE website-DPS student enrollment & performance data, 2004-2014 2009 2010 Charter - FRL 2011 2012 2013 2014 Traditional - FRL 14 The combination of improvements across charter and district schools with a shift of student into charters increased DPS’ % proficient in ELA from 49% to 54% between 2008 and 2014 Charter school improvement: 8% of students were in charter schools from 08-14; proficiency in those schools improved on average 4 points District-run school improvement: DPS-run schools gained on average 4% pts proficiency since 2008. In 2008 these schools served 92% of students. Shift from district-run to charter: From 2008 to 2014, 7% of students moved from district schools to charter schools. In addition to the 4% they would have gained in district schools (in dark blue), the schools they moved into were performing 4% better than the district-run schools, accounting for 5% of the overall improvement. Source: ERS Analysis % of Performance Improvement by source 8% 87% 5% 15 And despite DPS having a significantly higher need population that rest of the state… % of students eligible for free and reduced lunch DPS % FRL 80% 70% 68% 62% 60% 62% 64% State % FRL (Excluding DPS) 66% 66% 71% 72% 72% 71% 72% 70% 68% 50% 40% 30% 27% 28% 31% 31% 31% 32% 35% 37% 38% 38% 39% 38% 39% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Colorado Department of Education, Achievement Percentile Rank Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 16 ..gaps with the state for ELL and FRL students narrowed; and as of 2014 DPS was outperforming the state with white students ELA Percent Proficient ELL 100% 80% 60% 60% x 80% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 DPS ELL 100% Colorado ELL Non-Minority 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 DPS FRL 100% 80% 80% Colorado FRL Minority 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% FRL 100% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Colorado Non-Minority DPS Non-Minority Source: CDE website-DPS student enrollment & performance data, 2004-2014 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Colorado Minority DPS Minority 17 Though we don’t have national comparison data beyond 2013, state data indicates that DPS’ improvement trajectory has continued and even steepened DPS Proficient & Advanced Percentile in Colorado TCAP Reading to PARCC ELA 80% 70% 60% 50% 70% 69% 54% 45% 40% 41% 36% Closed the gap by 2 percentage points from 09-10 to 12-13 30% 20% DPS Percent Proficient Closed the gap by 12 percentage points from 12-13 to 15-16 State Percent Proficient (Excluding DPS) 10% 0% CMAS PARCC Assessment 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Colorado Department of Education, Achievement Percentile Rank Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 18 This increase is more than might be suggested by the narrowing need gap with the rest of the state % of students eligible for free and reduced lunch 80% 70% DPS % FRL 68% 62% 60% 62% 64% 66% 66% State % FRL (Excluding DPS) 72% 72% 71% 71% 72% 70% 68% 50% 40% 30% 27% 28% 31% 31% 31% 32% 35% 37% 38% 38% 39% 38% 39% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Colorado Department of Education, Achievement Percentile Rank Report 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 19 How did DPS do it? The School System 20/20 framework identifies the key transformations we believe that districts must make to drive significant, sustained improvement System 20/20 Area Key levers • Rigorous, information-age standards with effective curricula, instructional strategies, and assessments to achieve them. • Selective hiring, development, and strategic assignment to schools and teams. Career path and compensation enable growth and reward contribution. • Schools with restructured teams and schedules: personalized learning and support that responds to student needs and promotes instructional collaboration. LEADERSHIP • Clear standards and accountability with the support school leaders need to succeed. SCHOOL SUPPORT • A central office that serves as a strategy partner, leveraging data to increase efficiency and identify best practices. FUNDING • A central office that serves as a strategy partner, leveraging data to increase efficiency and identify best practices. PARTNERS • Partnering with families, community institutions, youth service organizations, and online instructors to serve students’ needs. STANDARDS TEACHING SCHOOL DESIGN 21 For over a decade, DPS has undertaken a broad array of structural changes aimed at many of these key levers System 20/20 Area DPS Actions STANDARDS • • Development of CCRS readiness assessment for schools Creation of curriculum and instructional support resources TEACHING • • • • Implementation of LEAP Teacher leadership program Incentives to attract teachers to highest-need subjects and schools Cross-district year-long plan for professional development SCHOOL DESIGN • • Increased school level flexibility Focus on whole child LEADERSHIP • • • Expanded principal pipeline and development programs Implement LEAD Incentives to attract and retain effective principals in high-need schools SCHOOL SUPPORT • • • Data systems Accountability system Lower instructional superintendent ratios, especially for turnaround schools FUNDING • • • Shared funding system across charter and district run schools Incorporation of ELL weights into funding system Active management of school portfolio across district-run and charter schools 22 The result is a measurable improvement in system conditions and practice & resource use SYSTEM CONDITIONS 2009-10 2015-16 PRACTICE & RESOURCE USE 2009-10 2015-16 STANDARDS TEACHING SCHOOL DESIGN LEADERSHIP SCHOOL SUPPORT FUNDING PARTNERS Source: DPS financial, student, and school data; ERS database. 23 These efforts have created the most strategic enabling conditions of any district we’ve studied Less Strategic More Strategic Denver 2015-16 Charlotte 2015-16 Aldine 2012-13 Lawrence 2013-14 Palm Beach County 2014-15 Boston 2014-15 Denver 2009-10 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 SystemCondistions Conditions System 24 Practice & resource use in DPS lags system conditions, but is also among the leaders of districts we’ve studied Less Strategic More Strategic Denver 2015-16 Charlotte 2015-16 Aldine 2012-13 Lawrence 2013-14 Palm Beach County 2014-15 Boston 2014-15 Denver 2009-10 1 1.5 Practice & Resource Use 2 2.5 3 SystemCondistions Conditions System 25 DPS’ journey holds valuable lessons for any district working to transform student outcomes  The importance of creating effective system supports through a sustained and integrated redesign approach DPS’ systematic creation of the enabling structures and conditions for high-quality schools across all of the School System 20/20 areas has steadily improved performance in districtrun schools and should continue to drive improvement into the future.  The power of a system-wide approach to human capital management DPS’ has focused on creating the conditions to attract, develop and retain high performing teachers and leaders across all areas of the system including evaluation, compensation and career paths and professional development.  The value of deliberate portfolio management DPS has accelerated overall district performance growth through a deliberate approach to portfolio management coupled with its chartering authority. Notably, this has also avoided the unplanned under-enrollment and performance degradation in district schools that too often accompanies charter growth.  The challenge of driving from enabling conditions through to practice Translating strong enabling conditions into school-level changes in practice and resource use requires active support to build capacity and change behaviors. 26 Looking forward Denver’s 20/20 goal is even more ambitious than its already impressive gains DPS 3rd Grade reading Scores 100% 90% 80% Actual Continued 2010-2014 trend Needed to reach goal Goal #2: A Foundation For Success in School. By 2020 80% of DPS third Grade Students will be at or above grade level in reading and writing 70% 60% 50% And that’s before accounting for the switch to PARCC 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Source: CDE website-DPS student performance data, 2004-2014; ERS projection 28 Reaching DPS’ 3rd grade reading goals will require greater gains than those seen in even the most successful districts Growth in Elementary Reading Proficiency Lawrence, MA Gain/year (%) # of Years Enrollment (000) +1 4 14 +1.8 8 34 +2.3 10 65 51% 60% +2.3 4 90 53% +2.8 5 30 +3.3 6 90 End 41% 45% 59% Norfolk, VA 73% 65% Aldine, TX Denver 09-10 to 13-14 RSD New Orleans Start 39% Denver Aspirations Source: ERS database, DPS performance data, Denver 2020 plan 60% 88% 80% 29 And while system-wide efforts have raised performance for all, significant achievement gaps remain FRL- Non FRL Achievement Gap, ELA White, Non-White Percentage Point Achievement Gap 90% Non FRL students 80% 70% 82% 69% 65% 38 pts 60% 29 pts 50% 39 pts 40% 30% 44% 40% 29% FRL students 20% 10% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: 2004-2014 TCAP data for all tested grades from CDE website Note: we limited this view to TCAP data because only one year of PARCC data is publicly available disaggregated by FRL status to date. 2014 30 Targeting support to high-need schools and students will be key to continuing progress and closing gaps  Focus portfolio management efforts on maintaining and increasing equity as demographics shift Leverage portfolio management and student enrollment processes to maximize opportunities for high-needs students including strategic deployment of proven models and operators and policies that encourage integration in gentrifying neighborhoods.  Leverage talent management to support high need schools Continue work to build structures to help lower performing/higher need schools attract, develop and retain talent, including increasing support for the high number of new teachers in these schools.  Support schools in implementing high-quality strategic school designs Improve support for school leaders to implement strategic school designs and strong professional learning practices in order to turn district-wide systems into on the ground changes that improve student performance. 31 Funding & Portfolio From: Current practices that result in wide funding variances across schools, even after adjusting for differences in student needs. To: Systems that allocate resources (people, time, and money) equitably across schools, according to student and instructional need. 32 Funding & Portfolio Key Funding & Portfolio findings  DPS is unique in how you have leveraged you chartering authority to create a more level playing field across district-run and charter schools  Willingness to put teeth into accountability systems by closing chronically underperforming schools  Strategic approach to opening new schools that avoids the unplanned and fragmented enrollment impacts on surrounding schools often seen in other districts  Deliberately moving beyond choice to increase equity of access  Implementation of single system designed to ensure equitable funding across all schools  This approach has resulted in better options for students  Increase in high quality seats across all regions; largest in regions with fewest high quality seats  More similarity in student needs between district-run and charter schools than in many districts  But high quality options are still lagging in some high need regions 33 Funding & Portfolio Funding System Conditions Funding 2009-10 2015-16 Practice & Resource Use 2009-10 2015-16 Equity Portfolio Transparency N/A 34 Funding & Portfolio In working to increase high-quality seats, DPS has become increasingly thoughtful about managing its portfolio of schools Metric # Metric Less Strategic More Strategic The district calculates the cost of different school types and has a clear plan for staffing small and specialty schools to balance access Portfolio Funding and Portfolio School opening and closing decisions support long-term portfolio goals. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school governance types and decision models (e.g., charter, autonomy) to reflect district capacity and to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school grade levels and sizes to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school program offerings (e.g., magnet, academy, specialized programming, themed schools) to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district proactively balances the number of seats by deliberately reducing the number of seats at one school when seats are added at another. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 35 Funding & Portfolio And surpasses all other districts we’ve studied in this area Metric # Metric Boston Less Strategic Charlotte Lawrence Denver More Strategic The district calculates the cost of different school types and has a clear plan for staffing small and specialty schools to balance access Portfolio Funding and Portfolio School opening and closing decisions support long-term portfolio goals. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school governance types and decision models (e.g., charter, autonomy) to reflect district capacity and to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school grade levels and sizes to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district has deliberately created a portfolio of school program offerings (e.g., magnet, academy, specialized programming, themed schools) to meet the needs of the students in the district. The district proactively balances the number of seats by deliberately reducing the number of seats at one school when seats are added at another. 36 Funding & Portfolio In the process, DPS has closed and opened a significant number of schools – charter and district-run Number of seats by school type (turnaround schools broken out) 100,000 Overall Growth by 13k seats 90,000 80,000 6,669 6,879 70,000 10,553 17,094 60,000 6,160 50,000 40,000 70,376 30,000 49,758 20,000 10,000 - 2009-10 DPS School Charter School Source: DPS Enrollment Data SY2009-2010 and SY2015-2016 2015-16 Turnaround New DPS School New Charter School 37 Funding & Portfolio Across the district, the number of high-quality seats has increased most in areas with the lowest access Percent of Students in High-Quality Seats by Year 80% 68% 70% 57% 60% 50% 30% 27% 31% 60% 44% 41% 40% 67% 34% 28% 20% 10% 0% Far Northeast Northwest Southwest 09-10 15-16 % Poverty 81% 78% Source: DPS school enrollment and performance data 09-10 and 15-16 89% Near Northeast Southeast 15-16 58% 45% 38 Funding & Portfolio As of 2013, DPS was on track to hit their goal for high-quality seats, but with new tests and SPF criteria, this goal may require recalibration 100% 90% Denver 2020 Goal- 80% 80% 70% 60% 50% 80% 40% 60% 30% 20% 50% 45% 10% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: DPS school enrollment and performance data 09-10 and 15-16 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 39 DPS has also taken action to improve equity of access Action What has DPS done? 1. One system for enrollment across all schools Launched “SchoolChoice” unified enrollment system in 2011 to manage enrollment process across DPS and charter run schools 2. Eliminate test-based entrance to schools While schools offer specialized programs, admittance is not based on test scores 3. Provide transportation Within geographic regions transportation is provided more frequently 4. Eliminate guaranteed seat at specific school based on geography Enrollment zones rolled out across the district encouraging all families to participate in school choice process. 5. Compensate for families who are unable to enroll months ahead of time Working to reserve seats across the district for students who enroll before the start of school, but after first round of choice process. These students are often lower income, lower performing, and more likely to have other special learning needs 40 Funding & Portfolio DPS has more similarity in student needs between charter and district-run schools than we see in many other districts % FRL % ELL 80% 40% 60% 30% 40% 73% 68% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Charter Traditional % Direct Certification 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 28% 32% 5% 0% Charter Traditional Source: DPS school enrollment 09-10 and 15-16 37% Charter % SPED 30% Traditional % Non-White 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 84% 76% Charter Traditional 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 12% 10% Charter Traditional % Incoming Proficiency 6th Grade ELA 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 30% Charter 34% Traditional 41 Funding & Portfolio But access for high-need students still lags behind Percent of Students in High-Quality Seats, 2015-16 80% 70% 70% 67% 60% 53% 50% 40% 65% 41% 43% 41% 41% 30% 20% 10% 0% FRL Non FRL ELL Not ELL Source: DPS school enrollment and performance data 09-10 and 15-16 Non-White White BelowProficient Proficient and Above 42 Funding & Portfolio Recommendations  Continue to increase number of high-quality seats, especially in least represented areas of the city    Continue to be opportunistic about shifting turnaround schools to proven models/operators to serve high need students in high need regions Continue active portfolio management across all regions Continue instructional improvement efforts across all schools, focusing on strategies to target the neediest populations (see following sections)  Explore opportunities to create more equitable access to high-quality seats given demographic shifts    Increase number of priority enrollment seats in high performing schools Expand spots for late enrollment students in areas with historically high populations “Smooth” assignment of late enrollment students across all schools in a zone   Expand priority enrollment to district run schools, especially in regions where population is shifting Encourage innovative new school models that target a diverse population as part of their instructional vision  Explore opportunities to leverage access policies and demographic shifts to increase integration as a lever for increased performance  Continue to monitor funding levels and formulas as population continues to shift to ensure equity and efficiency   Understand costs of central support relative to distribution of need across district Evaluate opportunities for cost sharing and economies of scale across all schools 43 From: A teaching job that is not structured for success. Teachers who are isolated, with limited support, flexibility, and opportunities for advancement. Career path and compensation structures that offer limited rewards for excellence and few consequences for poor performance. From: Limited autonomy, flexibility and support that do little to develop and reward strong leadership in schools or districts. Teaching Leadership To: A new approach to how we hire, assign, support, pay, and promote teachers so that strong candidates become teachers, good teachers develop into great teachers, great teachers have opportunities to advance, and all teachers work in teams to deliver the best instruction to students. To: Clear standards for principals and district administrators, investment in the tools they need to succeed, and processes to measure their performance and hold them accountable. 44 Teaching Leadership Key Teaching and Leadership Findings  DPS investment in LEAP, LEAD and growth supports for teachers and leaders seems to be paying off  Increased rigor in teacher evaluation  High retention of strongest performers coupled with relatively higher attrition of lowest performers  But high need schools are lagging in teacher and leader stability and quality  Turnover and % novice teachers and leaders is much higher in higher need schools  ProComp incentives for priority schools compete with incentives for high growth/high performing schools  Schools are not consistently maximizing the opportunities provided by the district, particularly around the hiring timeline, and teacher leaders 45 Teaching Leadership Teaching Teaching & Leadership Defining and Measuring Effectiveness System Conditions Practice & Resource Use System Conditions Practice & Resource Use 2009-10 2015-16 2009-10 2015-16 Hiring and Assignment Career Path and Compensation Leadership Professional Growth Defining and Measuring Effectiveness 2009-10 2015-16 2009-10 2015-16 Hiring and Assignment Career Path and Compensation Professional Growth 46 Teaching Leadership The LEAP and LEAD evaluation systems have improved DPS’ ability to support teachers and school leaders Defining & Measuring Effectiveness Leadership Teaching Metric Less Strategic More Strategic School leaders and other evaluators are supported and held accountable for timely, accurate, and rigorous evaluations to support teachers in improving practice. School leaders use evaluation measures to support and develop all teachers, retaining and promoting strong performers. School leader evaluators are supported and held accountable for timely, accurate, and rigorous evaluations to support school leaders in improving practice. The district uses evaluations to determine compensation and/or new job responsibilities as well as appropriate levels of training and support. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 47 Teaching Leadership There is general agreement that LEAP has increased evaluation rigor, leaving DPS middle of the pack in terms of identifying stars and underperformers Share of Teachers by Effectiveness Bucket 100% 80% 12% 15% 90% 44% 29% 34% 70% 12% 17% 24% 22% 58% 59% 18% 19% 61% 60% 50% 77% 40% 30% 56% 71% 66% 65% 65% 36% 20% 10% 0% 70% 2% 4% 18% 8% 6% 17% 17% Denver 15-16 Below Effective Effective Above Effective 48 Teaching Leadership DPS investment in teacher leadership and coaching positions has improved support and career opportunities Career Path & Compensation Leadership Teaching Hiring & Assignment Metric Less Strategic More Strategic District compensation structure and career paths provide opportunities for teachers to pursue multiple leadership paths. Effective teachers receive differential compensation for taking on additional responsibilities, more challenging assignments, and/or teaching in a subject or specialty where the market commands a higher salary. Percentage of annual total spend on teacher salary tied to increased responsibility, assignment or performance. The district ensures that school leaders' jobs are structured to be sustainable and stable through principal support and distributed leadership models. The district strategically identifies potential leaders and offers professional development and support to create pathways to leadership. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 49 DPS’ highest performing teachers are also most likely to stay, which is a leading indicator of teaching quality 25% Pct. Point Difference Between Retention of Teachers Below Effective vs Above Effective 20% 15% 23% 10% 19% 19% Boston Charlotte 18% 5% 0% 1% Aldine All Teachers Non-Probationary teachers Denver Retention of Teachers above effective 86% 89% 89% 91% 92% Retention of Teachers below effective 85% 70% 70% 68% 74% 50 Teaching Leadership However, low-performing schools tend to have a higher share of novice and greater turnover among teachers and principals Percent Novice SY16 and School Turnover (SY14-SY16) by Performance Quartile 100% 100% Teachers 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 54% 50% 40% Principals 90% 50% 36% 35% 30% 40% 41% 43% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Lowest-Performing Quartile Highest-Performing Quartile Percent Novice Note: Turnover adjusted to exclude new and closed schools Lowest-Performing Quartile Percent Turnover (2 years) 32% 20% Highest-Performing Quartile 51 Teaching Leadership FROM ERS/DPS analysis 2014: If DPS could improve “same teacher” growth at these schools, it could generate another 25% of the learning required to reach our sample target – a much larger gain than a comparable improvement in new teachers Cumulative 7-Year Scale Score Improvement 20 18 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 4 2 0 New Teacher Hiring/Induction Same Teacher Growth The bottom 10% of schools for hiring and induction improve up to the level of the median school for hiring and induction The bottom 10% of schools at same teacher growth improve up to the MGP level of the median school at same teacher growth 52 Teaching Leadership In Boston, changing structural factors like the hiring timeline is helping get better teachers into the district Percent of teachers hired three months before teachers report for new school year 100% 90% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 45% 40% 30%  Replaced forced placement with mutual consent  Pushed principals to identify vacancies earlier in year  Budget commitment to maintain unstaffed teachers  Adjust hiring process to allow both internal and external applicants 20% 10% 0% 7% Boston 2014-15 Denver 2015-16 Boston 2015-16 53 Teaching Leadership Recommendations  Continue to leverage evaluation and professional learning to improve teacher effectiveness  Ensure tight feedback loops  Prioritize additional supports in schools with large novice or struggling teaching forces  Expand efforts to attract and retain high performers in low performing schools  Align and expand financial and career incentives while limiting incentives in higher performing schools  Explore opportunities for moving “critical mass” of instructional staff  Explore opportunities to prioritize earlier hiring in high need schools  Expand efforts to match high potential leaders to high-need schools  Provide additional support to teachers and leaders in high need schools  Additional/enhanced teacher leadership roles  Support to “super-charge” team-based professional growth practices  Support for principals around hiring, retention, school design  Consider broader ProComp reform to simplify and build on recent innovative contracts in other districts 54 From: Rigid schedules and class sizes that don’t accommodate a range of learning needs and force teachers to work in isolation. School Design To: Restructured schedules and dynamic grouping strategies that respond to learning needs and create new opportunities for instructional collaboration. Standards & Instruction From: Inconsistent or inadequate standards with little support for teachers. From: Central office staff responsibilities that focus on compliance and oversight. To: Rigorous, information-age standards supported by effective curricula and assessments School Support To: Staff and systems that leverage data and technology to increase efficiency and accountability and identify best practices. 55 School Design Standards School Support Key School Design/Standards/School Support Findings  DPS has implemented strong enabling conditions and supports for school improvement  School-level flexibilities  Curriculum, assessments, and instructional support  Instructional superintendent support targeted to lowest performers  But these conditions do not consistently result in strategic school designs that meet the needs of all students and teachers  Lack of consistent, adequate, high-quality collaborative planning time is constraining shifts in instructional practice  Inconsistent matching of talent and time to student need within schools is a missed opportunity to improve student outcomes 56 School Design Standards School Support Standards & Instruction/School Support System Conditions Standards 2009-10 2015-16 Practice & Resource Use 2009-10 2015-16 Standards Formative Assessments School Support Integrated Data School Support & Accountability Service Quality & Efficiency N/A Turnaround 57 School Design Standards School Support School Design System Conditions 2009-10 2015-16 Practice & Resource Use 2009-10 2015-16 School Culture School Design Instructional Time Individual Attention N/A Teaching Effectiveness N/A Capacity N/A Flexibility N/A Special Populations N/A 58 School Design Standards School Support DPS has invested heavily in providing Common Core-aligned support, curricula and formative assessments to schools Standards Formative Assessments Standards & Instruction Metric Less Strategic More Strategic The district provides a curriculum or a curated list of instructional materials that is aligned with college and career ready standards. The district provides a template for scope and sequence of curriculum that is aligned with college and career ready standards. The district provides a curated set of formative assessments that are aligned with college and career ready standards and curricula. The district ensures that teachers and leaders have timely access to formative assessment data in an easy-to-use format. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 59 School Design Standards School Support DPS has also built strong structures to set expectations and performance goals for schools School Support & Accountability School Support Metric Less Strategic More Strategic The district has a systematic way to assess school performance at each school. The district has an effective method for evaluating student needs at each school. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 60 School Design Standards School Support And has made a big investment at the critical instructional superintendent level Instructional Superintendent Span of Control 35 Turnaround Non-Turnaround 33 30 25 25 22 19 20 15 13 10 5 0 8 9 Denver 2015-16 Oakland 14 14 16 10 9 4 Tulsa DC Aldine Baltimore Cleveland Boston Charlotte Indianapolis Denver Palm Beach 2009-10 County 61 School Design Standards School Support Supporting the goal of decentralization, DPS continues to expand school level flexibilities Metric # Metric Less Strategic More Strategic Flexibility School Design Schools have flexibility over how they spend their budget, including class size and staffing ratios, and can trade staff positions, positions for $, and $ for positions. Schools have the flexibility to hire teachers whose skills and expertise match school and student needs. Schools have the flexibility to make schedule changes without a contract renegotiation or a full faculty vote. Schools have the flexibility to vary special education service and instructional models as long as they meet IEP requirements. Schools have the flexibility to vary teacher teams, assignments, and schedules with data support in order to provide time for collaboration and match resources to student needs. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 62 School Design Standards School Support In fact, DPS schools have more flexibility than comparison districts Metric # Metric Less Strategic Boston Charlotte Lawrence Denver More Strategic Schools have the flexibility to hire teachers whose skills and expertise match school and student needs. Flexibility School Design Schools have flexibility over how they spend their budget, including class size and staffing ratios, and can trade staff positions, positions for $, and $ for positions. Schools have the flexibility to make schedule changes without a contract renegotiation or a full faculty vote. Schools have the flexibility to vary special education service and instructional models as long as they meet IEP requirements. Schools have the flexibility to vary teacher teams, assignments, and schedules with data support in order to provide time for collaboration and match resources to student needs. 63 This flexibility sets to stage for DPS schools to better match resources to teacher and student needs at the school level Supporting Teachers  Professional learning  Strategic assignment Supporting Students  Time  Individual attention 64 Design Standards SchoolSchool Design School Support Recent research by ERS indicates there are four key enabling conditions to effective professional learning…but not all are translating into practice in DPS Core Element Strategic practices Aligned curricula, assessments and instructional tools Aligned curricula creates coherence and enables teacher collaboration and continuous improvement focused on desired instructional shifts. School and teacher leaders School and teacher leaders have smaller spans of review enabling quality observation and feedback and productive collaboration, with a rich set of career growth opportunities for teachers. Feedback systems Feedback systems with calibrated observational measures and tools ensure teachers receive meaningful, growth-oriented feedback from experts who share the same high standards for instruction. Sufficient dedicated time for collaboration Teaching teams who share common work have significant and regular blocks of time to plan lessons, review student results and learn together to improve instruction. 65 School Design Standards School Support Not all schools are using high-quality materials to raise their level of instruction Metric # Metric Less Strategic More Strategic Standards Across all schools, school leaders ensure that grade level college and career ready standards based instruction takes place consistently within their schools. There is equal access to advanced courses across all schools in the district. Formative Assessments Standards & Instruction Across all schools, curriculum is consistently aligned with college and career ready standards. Teachers use formative assessments consistently and frequently to assess their students' progress and to refine their instruction accordingly. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 66 School Design Standards School Support Despite efforts to expand the effective use of collaborative planning time in schools, it isn’t universal Teaching Effectiveness School Design Metric # Metric Less Strategic More Strategic Teachers have at least 90min/wk. of collaborative time to deepen understanding of college and career ready standards and improve instructional practice within a team Do teacher teams have effective practices and protocols to adjust instruction and improve practice? The district provides support, including personnel, exemplars, professional development, and external resources, to schools for effective teams and CPT. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 67 This flexibility sets to stage for DPS schools to better match resources to teacher and student needs at the school level Supporting Teachers  Professional learning  Strategic assignment Supporting Students  Time  Individual attention 68 School Design Standards School Support In addition, successful schools will use a variety of strategies to personalize learning for students Strategy DPS – Traditional DPS – Charter Overall Time Prioritized by subject Prioritized by student need Teacher load Overall class size Prioritized by subject Prioritized by student need 69 School Design Standards School Support Overall, more students in DPS have moved to schools with additional time in the school year More Strategic Strategic Less Strategic Total Student Hours 1600 1450 1400 1228 1200 1000 1260 1283 Charlotte Denver 2015-16 1328 1330 Aldine Lawrence 990 800 600 400 200 0 Boston Denver 2009-10 * From Gates Small School Study Leading edge schools* 70 School Design Standards School Support But struggling students do not appear to be consistently getting additional instructional time Percentage of below-proficient students with greater than the minimum recommended average time in math and in ELA (18% of day) More Strategic Strategic Less Strategic 100% 90% 80% 68% 70% 60% 50% 49% 63% 55% 46% 39% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Math Denver 2009-10 ELA Denver 2015-16 Denver Charters 2015-16 71 School Design Standards School Support Teacher loads have gone down significantly over the past five years, increasing opportunities to build personal relationships and provide more individualized attention More Strategic Strategic Less Strategic Teacher Loads in Math 180 160 153 140 120 100 102 107 95 88 87 80 60 40 20 0 6th Grade Math Denver 2009-10 9th Grade Math Denver 2015-16 Denver Charters 2015-16 72 School Design Standards School Support But smaller class sizes in DPS don’t appear to be targeted at high-priority grades, subjects, or students More Strategic Strategic Less Strategic Ratio of class size for below-proficient students to size for proficient students Relative class size by proficiency in Math & ELA 1.4 1.19 1.2 1.06 1 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.89 0.89 0.96 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Core vs. Non-Core Denver 2009-10 9th Grade Math Proficient vs. BelowProficient Denver 2015-16 9th Grade ELA Proficient vs. BelowProficient Denver Charters 2015-16 73 School Design Standards School Support DPS structures aren’t systematically set up to help schools find best practice resources Capacity School Design Metric # Metric Less Strategic More Strategic The district provides schools with a menu of school design templates and building blocks (schedule, staffing and teacher team configurations, student groupings, and interventions) so each school can use the template that is the best match for its priority The district supports schools in the implementation of templates and building blocks, including providing training, removing policy barriers, and providing transition resources. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 74 School Design Standards School Support And the way ISs work with schools varies School Support & Accountability School Support Metric Less Strategic More Strategic The district has a system for identifying areas of instructional need in each school. The district has an effective method—that is integrated into the school-planning process—for evaluating whether school practices reflect a clear understanding of student needs, and the skills and capacity of school-based staff. Denver 2015-16 Denver 2009-10 75 School Design Standards School Support Recommendations  Explore ways to help instructional superintendents and principals better integrate and take advantage of district-level initiatives/strategies/ resources in a coherent way to meet the unique needs of each school  More structured process for IS to support school leaders in goal-setting and decision-making around school design  Capacity-building for IS and school leaders around strategic school design process and principles  Relevant and decision support data available to IS and school leaders “just in time”  Sharing of best practices across DPS and charter schools and from national exemplars  Incorporate budget and school design planning into one annual planning process to better support strategic school designs and resource use. 76 Recap of findings and recommendations DPS’ journey holds valuable lessons for any district working to transform student outcomes  The importance of creating effective system supports through a sustained and integrated redesign approach DPS’ systematic creation of the enabling structures and conditions for high-quality schools across all of the School System 20/20 areas has steadily improved performance in districtrun schools and should continue to drive improvement into the future.  The power of a system-wide approach to human capital management DPS’ has focused on creating the conditions to attract, develop and retain high performing teachers and leaders across all areas of the system including evaluation, compensation and career paths and professional development.  The value of deliberate portfolio management DPS has accelerated overall district performance growth through a deliberate approach to portfolio management coupled with its chartering authority. Notably, this has also avoided the unplanned under-enrollment and performance degradation in district schools that too often accompanies charter growth.  The challenge of driving from enabling conditions through to practice Translating strong enabling conditions into school-level changes in practice and resource use requires active support to build capacity and change behaviors. 78 Targeting support to high-need schools and students will be key to continuing progress and closing gaps  Focus portfolio management efforts on maintaining and increasing equity as demographics shift Leverage portfolio management and student enrollment processes to maximize opportunities for high-needs students including strategic deployment of proven models and operators and policies that encourage integration in gentrifying neighborhoods.  Leverage talent management to support high need schools Continue work to build structures to help lower performing/higher need schools attract, develop and retain talent, including increasing support for the high number of new teachers in these schools.  Support schools in implementing high-quality strategic school designs Improve support for school leaders to implement strategic school designs and strong professional learning practices in order to turn district-wide systems into on the ground changes that improve student performance. 79 Funding & Portfolio Key Funding & Portfolio findings  DPS is unique in how you have leveraged you chartering authority to create a more level playing field across district-run and charter schools  Willingness to put teeth into accountability systems by closing chronically underperforming schools  Strategic approach to opening new schools that avoids the unplanned and fragmented enrollment impacts on surrounding schools often seen in other districts  Deliberately moving beyond choice to increase equity of access  Implementation of single system designed to ensure equitable funding across all schools  This approach has resulted in better options for students  Increase in high quality seats across all regions; largest in regions with fewest high quality seats  More similarity in student needs between district-run and charter schools than in many districts  But high quality options are still lagging in some high need regions  And a high number of small schools may limit design and financial options 80 Funding & Portfolio Recommendations  Continue to increase number of high-quality seats, especially in least represented areas of the city    Continue to be opportunistic about shifting turnaround schools to proven models/operators to serve high need students in high need regions Continue active portfolio management across all regions Continue instructional improvement efforts across all schools, focusing on strategies to target the neediest populations (see following sections)  Explore opportunities to create more equitable access to high-quality seats given demographic shifts    Increase number of priority enrollment seats in high performing schools Expand spots for late enrollment students in areas with historically high populations “Smooth” assignment of late enrollment students across all schools in a zone   Expand priority enrollment to district run schools, especially in regions where population is shifting Encourage innovative new school models that target a diverse population as part of their instructional vision  Explore opportunities to leverage access policies and demographic shifts to increase integration as a lever for increased performance  Continue to monitor funding levels and formulas as population continues to shift to ensure equity and efficiency   Understand costs of central support relative to distribution of need across district Evaluate opportunities for cost sharing and economies of scale across all schools 81 Teaching Leadership Key Teaching and Leadership Findings  DPS investment in LEAP, LEAD and growth supports for teachers and leaders seems to be paying off  Increased rigor in teacher evaluation  High retention of strongest performers coupled with relatively higher attrition of lowest performers  But high need schools are lagging in teacher and leader stability and quality  Turnover and % novice teachers and leaders is much higher in higher need schools  ProComp incentives for priority schools compete with incentives for high growth/high performing schools  Schools are not consistently maximizing the opportunities provided by the district, particularly around the hiring timeline, and teacher leaders 82 Teaching Leadership Recommendations  Continue to leverage evaluation and professional learning to improve teacher effectiveness  Ensure tight feedback loops  Prioritize additional supports in schools with large novice or struggling teaching forces  Expand efforts to attract and retain high performers in low performing schools  Align and expand financial and career incentives while limiting incentives in higher performing schools  Explore opportunities for moving “critical mass” of instructional staff  Explore opportunities to prioritize earlier hiring in high need schools  Expand efforts to match high potential leaders to high-need schools  Provide additional support to teachers and leaders in high need schools  Additional/enhanced teacher leadership roles  Support to “super-charge” team-based professional growth practices  Support for principals around hiring, retention, school design  Consider broader ProComp reform to simplify and build on recent innovative contracts in other districts 83 School Design Standards School Support Key School Design/Standards/School Support Findings  DPS has implemented strong enabling conditions and supports for school improvement  School-level flexibilities  Curriculum, assessments, and instructional support  Instructional superintendent support targeted to lowest performers  But these conditions do not consistently result in strategic school designs that meet the needs of all students and teachers  Lack of consistent, adequate, high-quality collaborative planning time is constraining shifts in instructional practice  Inconsistent matching of talent and time to student need within schools is a missed opportunity to improve student outcomes 84 School Design Standards School Support Recommendations  Explore ways to help instructional superintendents and principals better integrate and take advantage of district-level initiatives/strategies/ resources in a coherent way to meet the unique needs of each school  More structured process for IS to support school leaders in goal-setting and decision-making around school design  Capacity-building for IS and school leaders around strategic school design process and principles  Relevant and decision support data available to IS and school leaders “just in time”  Sharing of best practices across DPS and charter schools and from national exemplars  Incorporate budget and school design planning into one annual planning process to better support strategic school designs and resource use. 85