Dayton Public Schools REVIEW CONDUCTED MAY 7-11, 2018 CENTER FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Page 1 NAME OF PROJECT OR TITLE OF DOCUMENT January 13, 2014 Dayton Public Schools Organization of this Report Dayton Public Schools District Review Executive Summary .................................................................................... 3 Dayton Public Schools District Review Overview..................................................................................................... 6 Dayton Public Schools District Review Findings .................................................................................................... 10 Dayton Public School District Review Recommendations ...................................................................................... 36 Appendix A: Review Team, Review Activities, Site Visit Schedule......................................................................... 40 Appendix B: Figures and Tables Related to Accountability .................................................................................... 53 Appendix C: Additional Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................... 78 Appendix D: Inventory Forms and Building Observation Form ............................................................................... 79 Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed ............................................................................................................. 87 Ohio Department of Education 25 South Front Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-466-5795 education.ohio.gov Page 2 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Dayton Public Schools District Review Executive Summary This review carefully considered the effectiveness of system-wide functions using the Ohio Department of Education’s six district standards: leadership, governance and communication; curriculum and instruction; assessment; human resources and professional development; student support; and fiscal management. The site visit to Dayton Public Schools was conducted from May 7-11, 2018. The following summary highlights the strengths, challenges and recommendations, which are further explained in the report. STRENGTHS Leadership, Governance and Communication • • The board of education and superintendent collaborate with stakeholders to support student achievement and college and career readiness. The district provides teacher leadership opportunities. Curriculum and Instruction • The district established the position of teacher leader to support improved instruction. Assessment and Effective Use of Data • The district created a comprehensive data dashboard to provide personnel with a centralized and complete data source. Human Resources and Professional Development • • The district employs teacher leaders to provide building-level, job-embedded professional development that is focused on teacher instructional needs. The district provides opportunities for teachers to collaborate in shared decision-making. Student Supports • • • The district developed working relationships with community business and higher education partners to support K-12 students and provide college and career readiness opportunities. The district provides a centralized center to assist students and families with the student enrollment process. Building leadership teams have the opportunity to collaborate with State Support Team 10 to review student attendance and discipline data and monitor the progress toward the district’s goal. Fiscal Management • The district has a five-year forecast that is transparent and comprehensive. CHALLENGES Leadership, Governance and Communication • The district does not consistently monitor and revise building improvement plans. Curriculum and Instruction • • • The district does not ensure the consistent delivery of evidence-based instruction to promote high achievement for all students. The district does not have a process in place to monitor the implementation of the board-adopted curriculum. The district does not consistently differentiate instructional practices to address learning needs of students. Page 3 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Assessment and Effective Use of Data • • • The district does not use common formative assessments to determine students’ learning or the student performance data to modify instructional practices. The district does not consistently use technology for student learning. The district does not consistently monitor the fidelity of the implementation of the Ohio Improvement Process in Focus and Priority school buildings. Human Resources and Professional Development • • • • The district does not have processes in place to recruit, select or assign highly qualified staff. The district’s rate of teacher absences does not allow for consistent classroom instruction. The district does not effectively support a teacher evaluation process. The district does not prioritize professional development based on the district improvement plan goals and monitor for effectiveness. Student Supports • • • The district does not have a multi-tiered system of support to address student academic and behavior needs. The district does not consistently implement practices and action plans to close the gap in achievement and graduation rate for students with disabilities. The district does not effectively and consistently support student attendance and engage them in making connections with learning and college and career preparedness. Fiscal Management • • The district does not follow the purchasing procedures outlined in the board-approved policy and procedures. The district does not have a comprehensive and participatory annual budget process to include district goals. RECOMMENDATIONS Leadership, Governance and Communication • • Establish measures of accountability and hold district administrators and principals responsible for the consistent monitoring of school improvement plans Ensure ongoing professional development for principals aligned to district initiatives and meets the Ohio Standards for Professional Development that includes both coaching and mentoring opportunities. Curriculum and Instruction • • • Provide professional development to teaching staff on evidence-based instructional practices. Align curriculum materials to Ohio's Learning Standards. Establish a committee representing the curriculum and instruction department, building administrators and teachers to help direct and support the work of curriculum and instruction across the district. Ensure the district identifies evidence-based instructional practices and strategies that address all students' learning or behavioral needs. Assessment and the Use of Data • • Provide professional development on assessment literacy to guide the creation of grade level formative assessments. Conduct an inventory of technology that is available for use in the classroom by teachers and students. Page 4 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • Contact State Support Team 10 consultants to provide technical assistance in using data to inform instructional practices, as well as professional development and guidance in monitoring the teams’ fidelity of implementing the Ohio Improvement Process. Human Resources and Professional Development • • • Develop a plan for the human resources department that includes its organizational structure, identified services and delineation of responsibilities with appropriate training. Develop strategies to be used at the building and district levels to reinforce staff attendance at the targeted 95 percent level. Embed professional development within the district improvement plan to support identified goals and strategies and to ensure professional development addresses identified adult changes in practices necessary for meeting student learning targets. Student Supports • • • Convene a committee including representatives from district and building leaders, general and special education staff, student support staff, State Support Team 10 and other appropriate stakeholders to create a district policy for the adoption and implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports for prevention, early identification and interventions to address student’s academic, behavior and health needs. Review and determine the level of implementation of the district-adopted inclusionary special education service delivery model. Update the district attendance policies to align with House Bill 410 requirements. Fiscal Management • • • Review current policy and assure district personnel are aware of the guidelines in purchasing/procurement practices to be as efficient in the purchasing process as possible. Develop a written policy manual, procedure guide and provide training to staff for the processing of payroll, including staff absences and time sheets. Develop a comprehensive and participatory budget process that provides opportunities for principals and district administrators to communicate with the superintendent, treasurer and executive cabinet regarding the needs of the building or departments. Page 5 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Dayton Public Schools District Review Overview PURPOSE Conducted under Ohio law, 1 district reviews support local school districts in establishing or strengthening a cycle of continuous improvement. Reviews consider carefully the effectiveness of system-wide functions using the Ohio Department of Education’s six district standards: leadership, governance and communication; curriculum and instruction; assessment and effective use of data; human resources and professional development; student supports; and fiscal management. Reviews identify systems and practices that may be impeding improvement as well as those most likely to be contributing to positive results. METHODOLOGY Reviewers collect evidence for each of the six district standards above. A district review team consisting of independent consultants with expertise in each of the standards review documentation, data and reports for two days before conducting a five-day district visit that includes visits to individual schools. The team conducts interviews and focus group sessions with stakeholders such as board of education members, teachers’ association representatives, administrators, teachers, parents and students. Team members also observe classroom instructional practices. Subsequent to the on-site review, the team meets for two days to develop findings and recommendations before submitting a draft report to the Ohio Department of Education. District review reports focus primarily on the system’s most significant strengths and challenges, with an emphasis on identifying areas for improvement. SITE VISIT The site visit to the Dayton Public School District was conducted May 7-11, 2018. The site visit included 46 hours of interviews and focus groups with 146 stakeholders, including board members, district administrators, school staff and teachers’ association representatives. The review team conducted nine focus groups with state support team members, principals, elementary teachers, middle school/high school teachers, elementary students (grades 2-5) middle school students (grades 6-8) and high school students (grades 10 and 12), approximately 16 parents and 11 community members. A list of review team members, information about review activities and the site visit schedule are in Appendix A. Appendices B and C provide information about enrollment, expenditures and student performance. The team also conducted building observations and observed classroom instructional practices in 129 classrooms in 30 schools. Appendix D contains the instructional inventory tools used to record observed characteristics of standards-based teaching and the building observation form to take note of the climate and culture of the district’s buildings. Appendix E lists the district documents reviewed prior to and during the site visit. DISTRICT PROFILE Dayton City Schools are in Montgomery County. According to the United States Census Bureau, the estimated population of Dayton, Ohio as of July 1, 2017, was 140,371, which represents a 1.1 percent decrease in population since the 2010 Census. 2 Approximately 83.1 percent of the population graduated from high school. The median household income in Dayton City is $28,745 with 34.5 percent of the population living below the poverty line. In comparison, the median household income in Ohio is $50,674 with 15.4 percent living below the poverty line. The average teacher salary in Dayton City School District for 2016-2017 was $45,035 (see table B-1, Appendix B). The average teacher salary in the district has generally declined over the last five years. During the same period, 1 Ohio Revised Code 3302.10 United States Census Bureau, 2010 2 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018 2 Page 6 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 the percentage of teacher attendance has increased, while the percentage of highly qualified teachers and teachers with master’s or doctorate degrees has decreased. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the April 2018 unemployment rate for Dayton was 3.7 percent. The racial makeup of the school district (2016-2017) is 66.1 percent African-American, 24.8 percent Caucasian, 4.5 percent multiracial, and 3.9 percent Hispanic (see figure B-1, Appendix B). The district’s enrollment has remained stable over the last five years (see figure B-2 in Appendix B). During this same time span, the special population subgroups have also remained relatively stable at approximately the following percentages in 2017: 100 percent economically disadvantaged students, 20 percent students with disabilities, 7 percent gifted students, and 6 percent English language learner students. The economically disadvantaged subgroup has encompassed all students since the 2014-2015 school year (see B-3 in Appendix B). In the 2016-2017 school year, about 49 percent of students chose not to enroll in their district of residence. About 30 percent enrolled in a community school and about 12 percent took advantage of one of the state’s scholarship opportunities to attend a private school (see figure B-4, Appendix B). The 2016-2017 enrollment numbers by school, race and special population are included in table C-1, Appendix C. Dayton is composed of the following 28 schools: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Belle Haven Belmont HS Charity Adams Cleveland Dayton Boys Prep Dunbar Early College Eastmont Edison Edwin Joel Brown Fairview Horace Mann Jackson Center Kemp Kiser Louise Troy Meadowdale Meadowdale HS Ponitz Career Center River’s Edge Rosa Parks Ruskin Stivers Thurgood Marshall Valerie Westwood Wogaman World of Wonder Page 7 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Wright Brothers STUDENT PERFORMANCE Information about student performance includes: (1) the status of the district as it relates to the Ohio Department of Education’s accountability system; (2) the progress the district is making toward narrowing proficiency gaps as measured by the gap closing component; (3) English language arts performance and student growth; (4) mathematics performance and student growth; (5) Performance Index; (6) annual dropout rates and 4- and 5-year cohort graduation rates; (7) suspension/expulsion rates; (8) prepared for success after high school; (9) attendance information and (10) K-3 literacy. Data is reported for the district, its schools and student subgroups that have at least three years of assessment data. Three-year trend data (or more) are provided when possible, in addition to areas in the district and/or its schools demonstrating potentially meaningful gains or declines over these periods. In this section, as well as Appendices B and C, the data reported is the most recently available. 1. The district report card summary. A. On its 2016-2017 report card, the district received a “D” in K-3 Literacy and Progress and an “F” grade in Achievement, Gap Closing, Graduation and Prepared for Success. 2. The district is not narrowing the proficiency gaps. A. None of the district’s subgroups met the annual measurable objectives (AMO) for English language arts (77.1 percent), mathematics (72 percent) or graduation rate (85.1 percent) in 2016-2017 (See Figure B-5, Appendix B 3). Most subgroups remain near a graduation rate of 73 percent, except for multiracial and students with disabilities, whose graduation rates are 75.8 percent and 60.4 percent, respectively (see Figure B-5A, Appendix B). Most subgroups showed higher passing rates for English language arts than mathematics in 2016-2017. B. Students with disabilities showed the greatest gap in proficiency, with 11.3 percent and 9.4 percent passing the English language arts and math assessments, respectively (see figures B-5A, Appendix B). All subgroups improved in their English language arts passage rates this year as compared to last year, except for the Asian/Pacific Islander subgroup. 3. The district’s English language arts performance and student growth 4. A. The passage rate for each indicator is 80 percent. Dayton City Schools did not meet the English language arts indicators for Ohio’s State Tests in 2016-2017 (see figures B-6, Appendix B). More than 70 percent of students did not pass their English language arts tests in grades 6, 7 and 8. Additionally, more than 70 percent of students did not pass the English language arts I and II end-of-course exams (see figure B-9 appendix B). B. No grade level outperformed the state or similar districts in English language arts (see figure B-8, Appendix B). The greatest proficiency gaps between the state and the district are seen at grade 7 (-34.6 percent), grade 5 (-33.6 percent), and grade 4 (-32.4 percent; see figure B-8, Appendix B). Grade 3,4,5 and 6—as well as both English language arts I—have improved from last year’s English language arts rates while other grades have declined or remained approximately stable in performance. C. Two-year Value-Added results indicated that there was significant evidence Dayton students made less than expected progress in all grades except fourth grade and English language arts I and II (see figure B10, Appendix B). 4. The district’s mathematics performance and student growth. A. None of the district’s subgroups met the annual measurable objectives for math (see figure B-7, Appendix B). Additionally, Dayton performed below similar districts and the state average in all math assessment (see figure B-11, Appendix B). The greatest proficiency gaps between the state and Dayton appear in 3 4 The dotted lines represent the different target AMOs. Growth occurs when there is evidence that students made progress similar to or exceeding the statewide expectation. Page 8 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 grade 4 (-37 percent), grade 5 (-39.6 percent) and grade 6 (-34.2 percent). Grade 3 has the highest passing rate at 38.9 percent. After grade 3, the percent of students scoring at a level of proficient or above tends to drop steadily. B. For all grades, there was significant evidence that students made less progress than expected progress for math Ohio’s State Tests in 2016-2017, except in grades 6 and 7 where there was strong evidence of greater than expected growth and Algebra and Geometry where growth met the expectations. Additionally, in grades 3, 4, 5 and 6, the passage rates in math have increased from the 2016 to the 2017 academic year; while they have decreased in the other grades, Algebra and Geometry (see figure B-12, Appendix B). 5. The district’s Performance Index5 scores. A. Dayton City School District’s Performance Index score for 2016-2017 was 57.1. The district had a slight increase in Performance Index since last year. (see figure B-14, Appendix B). 6. Graduation6 and dropout rates 7. A. No subgroups reached the graduation rate target AMO (see figure B-5A, Appendix B). Both the four-year and five-year graduation rates are lower than similar districts and the state average this year (see figure B15, Appendix B). Approximately 27.4 percent of the district’s students did not graduate within four years, as compared to the state average of 16.4 percent. The four-year graduation rates had seen an increase to 75 percent for the class of 2015 then decreased to 72.6 percent for class of 2016, but these last two years have still had higher four-year graduation rates than the previous three years. The five-year graduation rates follow the same general trend as the four-year graduation rate but at about 5-8 percentage points above (see figure B-16, Appendix B). B. The number of students dropping out has ranged from 209 to 306 students during the previous four years (see figure B-17, Appendix B). 7. The district’s rates of in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions and expulsions by district and school. A. Dayton seen a reduction in the number of disciplinary actions reported per 100 students to around 33.7 disciplinary actions per 100 students during the 2017 academic year. During the previous five years, Dayton students have experienced more frequent disciplinary actions than the state (See figure B-18, Appendix B and figure C-1, Appendix C). 8. Prepared for Success8 A. ACT participation for the 2017 graduating class was 52.5 percent. Of the students who participated, 6.6 percent received remediation-free scores (see figure B-19, Appendix B). ACT participation for the previous graduating class was 51.2 percent, making it a 1.3 percent increase in a year. There was a slight increase in the percentage of students who received ACT remediation-free scores from 2016 to 2017 (6.1 percent in 2016 and 6.6 percent in 2017). Further, College Credit Plus participation increased from 20.2 percent in 2016 to 31.4 percent during the 2017 school year. Additionally, SAT participation increased slightly with an increase of 0.2 percent in remediation-free scores from the 2016 to 2017 school year. Further, the participation in the industry-recognized credentials program went from 2.4 percent in 2016 to 2.9 percent in 2017. Finally, 2.2 percent of students received Honors Diplomas in 2017, which is slight increase from prior years. B. The percent of students participating in Advancement Placement courses decreased from 13.5 percent in 2016 to 10.1 percent in 2017. 5 The Performance Index score measures the achievement of every student regardless of their levels of proficiency. Schools receive points for every level of achievement, with more points being awarded for higher passing scores. Untested students also are included in the calculation and schools and districts receive zero points for them. For purposes of assigning the letter grades, a Performance Index score of 120 is considered to be a “perfect” score. Districts and schools will receive one of five letter grades from “A” through “F” based on the percentage of total possible points earned. 6 Graduation rate is the percentage of students that received a regular or honors diploma during or before the end of the school year. 7 As defined by the U.S. Department of Education, dropout rate represents the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential (either a diploma or an equivalency credential such as a GED certificate). 8 Beginning in 2014, the Ohio Department of Education released additional data about each district’s graduates in a component called Prepared for Success. These elements show the extent to which a district’s students are prepared for college or a career. Page 9 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 9. Attendance Rates A. Dayton City School District attendance rates were 2 to 3 percentage points below the state’s rates for the last four school years (see figure B-20, Appendix B). B. The district’s chronic absenteeism rate 9 decreased to a low of 26.7 percent during the 2015-2016 school year (see figure B-21, Appendix B). It increased to 30.7 percent during the 2016-2017 school year. Of all students enrolled in the Dayton City School District, approximately 42 percent of the district’s students showed satisfactory attendance, and 27 percent of students were considered at risk of becoming chronically absent (see figure B-22, Appendix B). C. During the 2016-2017 school year, 12th graders had the highest chronic absenteeism rate – at approximately 38.9 percent (see figure B-23, Appendix B). 10. K-3 Literacy 10 A. Year 1 had the highest improvement in students who moved from off track to on track status (37.2 percent; see figure B-24, Appendix B). 11. Financial Data A. In 2016-2017, Dayton City School District spent more on non-classroom instruction than the average of similar districts and the state average (see figure B-25, Appendix B). Of the district’s expenditures, 37.8 percent are non-classroom based. B. Sixty-five percent of the district’s revenue came from the state, with local funds making up the second highest percent of Dayton’s revenue at 20 percent (see figure B-25A, Appendix B). C. During the 2016-2017 school year, Dayton City School District spent $1,118 more on operating expenses per equivalent pupil as compared to the state average (see figure B-26, Appendix B). Dayton Public Schools District Review Findings STRENGTHS Leadership, Governance and Communication 1. The board of education and superintendent collaborate with stakeholders to support student achievement and college and career readiness. A. According to the business advisory council to the board, policy BCFA, "the council advises and provides recommendations to the board on matters specified by the board, including, but not necessarily limited to, the delineation of employment skills, the development of curriculum to instill these skills, changes in the economy and in the job market and the types of employment in which future jobs are most likely available." • Interviews with business, community and government leaders show the district has created a renewed, positive working relationship among all parties on the Business Advisory Council since four new board members were elected and a new superintendent appointed. Comments from interviews included: • “The superintendent is focused on students and closing the achievement gap. She wants to join with area partners to help accomplish that;” 9 Source: Ohio Department of Education; Students who miss less than 5 percent of school days are identified as having satisfactory attendance. Students who miss between 5 percent and 9.9 percent of school days are identified as at risk. Students who miss between 10 percent and 19.9 percent of school days are identified as moderately chronic. Students who miss 20 percent or more of school days are identified as severely chronic. 10 An analysis of Ohio student data found that a student who does not read proficiently by the end of third grade is 3.5 times more likely not to graduate on time than their “on-track” peers. When looking at data from the 2003-2004 third grade cohort tied to the graduating class of 2013, the study found that only 57 percent of the students who scored in the limited range on their 2004 third grade English language arts test graduated on time, and only two-thirds of those scoring basic graduated on time. Conversely, more than four-fifths of the students scoring proficient or higher graduated on time. To address reading deficits early, the K-3 Literacy Improvement Measure is used to determine if more students are learning to read in kindergarten through third grade. Page 10 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • “The board members are conducting themselves with more professionalism at the board meetings and in the community;” • “The board members are focused on quality and collaboration;” • “The leadership sees opportunities to support students and not threats everywhere;” • "The board is reworking its contract with the community;" • “A good relationship has been established with city hall and area businesses;” and • “Previously the Business Advisory Council was called the Accountability Committee. Now we want to reboot and add value - workforce development and readiness of students for the workforce.” • The district has increased partnerships among business, community and government entities to support students, based on interviews and documents. • The City of Learners, a city of Dayton committee, works with area groups, including the school district, to improve the workforce. • Learn to Earn Dayton is dedicated to fostering the success of all Montgomery County children from birth until their graduation from college or selection of a career. Their goal is to have 60 percent of Montgomery County's workforce earn a college degree or high-quality credential by 2025. • The business advisory council helps students make career connections to in-demand areas (advanced manufacturing, logistics, aviation and aeronautics, construction, business services and health care) by mentoring students or by providing apprenticeships. • Counselors, principals and superintendent go on field trips to area businesses to increase opportunities for students to be career ready. • Summer “melt” program included volunteers from the business advisory committee who called students last summer to encourage them to register for and attend college courses in the fall. • The University of Dayton assigned an area counselor to help with college and career readiness skills and to increase The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA) completion rate. • Talent Hub Equity Fellows are placed in every middle school and high school to advocate for change in advancing equity issues and to identify school practices that mitigate student academic success. • The Dayton Foundation, Dayton Public Schools, Montgomery County, United Way, City of Dayton, University of Dayton and Wright State University entered a memorandum of understanding from July 2017 to June 2018 to commit funds toward Neighborhood School Center programs to provide for site coordinators. These Neighborhood School Centers bring together many partners to offer a range of supports and opportunities to children, youth, families and communities. • City of Dayton, Dayton Public Schools and Local Labor met on April 20, 2018, to discuss apprenticeship opportunities for students. • Learn to Earn sponsored, and the district participated in, a March 2, 2018, Summit “Know the Gap, Close the Gap – Now and How” to identify equity gaps and learn how to close them. IMPACT: When the district collaborates and forms partnerships with businesses, the community and government entities, it may increase college and career opportunities for students and improve student achievement. 2. The district provides teacher leadership opportunities. Teacher leadership refers to a set of skills demonstrated by teachers who continue to teach students and have an influence that extends beyond their own classrooms. According to documents and interviews, the district provides teachers with opportunities to engage in leadership outside the classroom environment. Page 11 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • The district hired 27 teacher leaders during the 2017-2018 school year to model, collaborate and team teach best practices and to support teachers in their use of a variety of data sources to inform instructional practice according to their job description. • Teachers participate in the district leadership team (DLT) and are charged with shared responsibility to hold adults accountable for improved student performance. The DLT is a team of individuals who promote a culture of common expectations or commitment by maintaining a district wide focus on high achievement for all students. • Teachers participate in building leadership teams (BLT) to encourage collaborative communication related to student achievement within and among the schools. The BLT is a team of individuals who promote a culture of common expectations or commitment by maintaining a school wide focus on improving student achievement. The team fosters shared leadership and responsibility for the success of every child through the creation of purposeful communities. • Teachers serve on teacher-based teams (TBTs) to improve student achievement. TBTs are teachers who serve on grade-level or department teams to collect and analyze student work, establish expectations for implementing specific, effective changes relative to the data, implement agreed-upon building-wide strategies based on data and determine effectiveness of practices. • Teacher mentors work with and support all teachers new to the profession or the district. • District leadership and State Support Team 10 provide monthly building leadership and data trainings. The master contract between the Dayton Education Association and the Dayton Board of Education dated June 1, 2017-July 30, 2019, lists supplemental positions that offer leadership roles to teachers. Supplemental positions are limited contracts given to teachers to complete additional duties outside of their teaching duties. According to the contract: • School treasurers enter purchase orders and approve payments to the district treasurer’s office for all the teachers in every building. • Cluster leaders coordinate student services in a school within a school. A school within a school is a large public school that has been divided into smaller, autonomous subunits with a cluster leader assigned to each subunit. • Teachers serve as intervention team coordinators and organize meetings to address students not meeting academic expectations. • Teachers assigned the technical building coordinator role assist with technology issues in the building. • Teachers serve on the Local Professional Development Committee, "a group that is charged with collecting, analyzing and effectively using data and current best practices to identify issues and recommend solutions to increase instructional proficiency and student achievement." • Teachers assigned as testing coordinators assist in the administration of all required assessments throughout the school year. • Teachers participate in curriculum-specific committees to revise standards and select textbooks and instructional materials. • Teachers on the School Faculty Council collectively resolve building issues primarily related to the district’s ongoing commitment to improve student and teacher performance. This committee also serves as the school safety committee. • Teachers on the Discipline Committee “ensure fair and consistent discipline in every building.” IMPACT: When the district provides leadership opportunities, teachers may have increased input into decisions that impact student achievement. Page 12 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Curriculum and Instruction 1. The district established the position of teacher leader to support improved instruction. The district hired 27 teacher leaders during the 2017-2018 school year to provide professional development and support to K-12 teachers for improved instructional practice. According to the position posting, the district outlines the following job goals for teacher leaders, which are as follows: • "Model, collaborate, and team teach best practices teaching strategies;" • "Serve as a liaison with the curriculum department and principals, to support and work with educators to implement district curriculum and teaching strategies;" • "Further the mission and vision of the school district;" • "Support teachers in their use of a variety of data types to inform instructional practice;" and • "Foster and develop relationships with all stakeholders." Teacher leaders shared they were trained in the Marzano Instructional Framework Model during the 20172018 school year. • The Marzano Instructional Framework Model provides teachers and principals with a research-based resource for quality instructional lesson planning. • The Marzano Instructional Framework Model includes a teacher evaluation model that consist of three main elements for creating a standards-based classroom. • The three main elements for creating a standards-based classroom include, Standards-Based Planning, Conditions for Learning and Standards-Based Instruction. The teacher leaders meet with grade-level or subject-area teachers weekly or monthly in "data chats" to discuss topics such as student performance data, lesson design or professional development needs. • "Data Chats" are informal face-to-face, small-group meetings designed to promote professional dialogue among teachers. Teacher leaders provide professional development to teachers in grades K-12. • According to teachers in a focus group, "teacher leaders offer professional development right after school." • Teacher leaders shared they offer professional development on teaching reading and writing, classroom management, "instructional strategy of the month, the Five Step Process, and SIOP." SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Model) is a research-based instructional model that includes the following eight components: lesson preparation, interaction, building background, practice and application, comprehensible input, lesson delivery, strategies, and review and assessment. IMPACT: When the district provides personnel to assist teachers in improving their instructional practices, it may improve student achievement. Assessment and Effective Use of Data 1. The district created a comprehensive data dashboard to provide personnel with a centralized and complete data source. A. According to interviews and a demonstration, the district developed the One Stop Data Dashboard to generate reports from student and operational data. District staff describe the data dashboard as "userfriendly." B. The data dashboard includes academic data from assessments to establish benchmarks and monitor student progress. These assessments include: Page 13 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • Northwest Education Assessment Measures of Academic Progress for reading and mathematics in grades K-9; • Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills assessments for grades K-5; • Collaborative Assessment Project scores for grades 6-7 in science and grades 4-8 for social Studies; • Ohio’s State Tests scores for grades 3-8 in English language arts and mathematics, grades 5 and 8 for science and end-of-course exams; and • Results of the SAT and ACT standardized tests used for college admissions. C. According to a demonstration of the data dashboard, the district’s student data system provides reports such as: • Enrollment and attendance data: This includes dates of enrollment and schools attended, as well as demographic information including race, gender, health conditions and special programs. The district updates a chronic absenteeism page, disaggregated by students in grades K-12, on a nightly basis. • Discipline data: The district updates discipline data on a nightly basis. The district provides a high school page to monitor student graduation data, including a student graduation point tracker. • Transportation department data: This includes data involving on-time performance of bus pick-ups and drop-offs, bus mileage, bus inspections, employee discipline, reasons for discipline and transportation call center data. D. According to interviews, the One Stop Data Dashboard is currently available to supervisors, principals, counsellors and building teacher leaders. IMPACT: When the district uses a comprehensive student information system that includes academic and operational data, staff may be able to make timely and informed decisions about instruction and operations. Human Resources and Professional Development 1. The district employs teacher leaders to provide building-level, job-embedded professional development that is focused on teacher instructional needs. According to interviews and a review of documents, the district assigned 27 teacher leaders to schools during the 2017-2018 school year to provide direct instructional support to classroom teachers to support the district’s initiatives related to classroom instruction. A review of position descriptions shows the teacher leader responsibilities includes the following direct support to teachers: • Modeling, collaborating and team teaching best practice teaching strategies; • Serving as a liaison with the curriculum department and principals and providing support to and working with educators to implement district curriculum and teaching strategies; and • Supporting teachers in their use of a variety of data types to inform instructional practice. According to teacher focus group participants, teachers appreciate the work of the teacher leaders assigned to their schools. Comments from teachers included: • “[The teacher leader is the] most helpful person in the school;” and • “She helped me understand my data.” IMPACT: When the district employs professional staff, who can provide direct instructional support to classroom teachers, it may result in more effective instruction. 2. The district provides opportunities for teachers to collaborate in shared decision-making. Page 14 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 According to interviews and the Master Contract Between Dayton Education Association and The Dayton City School District document, the district provides teachers opportunities to participate in leadership roles. • The master contract has specific articles for teachers to assume leadership opportunities including: o Serving on the school faculty council, Article 10, page 24 in the contract; o Working with student professional staff (student teachers), Article 17, page 32 in the contract; and o Participating on the district’s Local Professional Development Committee, Article 31, page 54 in the contract. According to interviews with teachers, building administrators, and a review of agendas and meeting minutes, teachers assume leadership responsibilities such as: • Leading teacher-based team meetings; • Developing agendas, assuring minutes are accurate and communicating with the building leadership team; and • Serving as liaisons between the building leadership team and their teacher-based teams at the building leadership team meetings. Interviews with building administrators, district administrators and teachers indicated teachers assume leadership responsibilities by participating on the district leadership team. IMPACT: When the district provides opportunities for teachers to assume leadership roles, it may increase teachers’ chances to share in decision-making that may positively impact student achievement. Student Supports 1. The district has developed working relationships with community business and higher education partners to support K-12 students and provide college and career readiness opportunities. The district’s business advisory committee and district leaders collaborate with local business and higher education partners to provide learning opportunities for students. • According to document reviews and interviews, "the City of Learners initiative was launched by the Dayton [city mayor] in 2014 as a citywide effort to support Dayton's schools and students in achieving new levels of success and to build a stronger workforce for the future." • • The City of Learners sponsors student support initiatives such as: o The Equity Fellows program, implemented at select district high schools to address problems such as the achievement gap issue. Equity fellows are individuals (teachers, counselors, or administrators) who identify and address school practices that inhibit student success and work collaboratively with colleagues to aid student achievement outcomes; o Participating school teams conduct “data walks” and have additional professional development around culturally responsive teaching practices; o Identifying primary reasons for student absenteeism and student suspensions and work collaboratively with other key stakeholder groups (e.g., the Neighborhood Schools Centers) to institute specific practices to address chronic absenteeism in the district. According to the Learn to Earn Dayton website, Learn to Earn Dayton is a "partnership focused on promoting evidence-based practices in Montgomery County Schools that foster student success at critical junctures throughout children's education journey." o Learn to Earn Dayton partners include the CareSource Foundation, MATHILE Family Foundation, IDDINGS Foundation, Frank M. Tait Foundation, PNC Bank, Montgomery County Educational Service Center, The Dayton Foundation, Montgomery County, The Page 15 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Spurling Foundation, VECTREN, University of Dayton, Sinclair College, Wright State University and the Fordham Institute. o Learn to Earn Dayton initiatives include:  Implementation of Passport to Kindergarten, a kindergarten readiness program for high-needs children;  Promoting all students' attendance and reducing chronic absenteeism;  Expanding after-school and summer learning opportunities;  Expanding high school internship opportunities and career pathways;  Ensuring every high school graduate has a plan to attend college or earn credential after graduating from high school;  Implementation of the FAFSA Finish to drive up the number of students completing the financial assistance free application for federal student aid (FAFSA); and  Promotion of College and Career Signing Day Celebration at every Montgomery County high school. IMPACT: When the district works with community business and higher education partners to provide support for students in grades K-12 and engage them in college and career readiness, student engagement in learning and academic achievement may increase. 2. The district provides a centralized center to assist students and families with the student enrollment process. According to interviews and documents, the enrollment center is a "one-stop" center to enroll students in the district. It is located on the second floor of the district office and has four full-time student management specialists and additional part-time staff as needed. According to interviews and center observations, enrollment specialists: • Serve as translators for non-English speaking families; and • Collaborate with the personnel of the district’s offices of transportation, exceptional children, and English learners, schools and other appropriate institutions and agencies to coordinate services and assign students to schools that best address their needs (e.g., individualized education programs, English learners). The enrollment team set a customer satisfaction goal of no more than a fifteen-minute wait time for families to be addressed at the center. IMPACT: When the district provides students and families with a centralized location to complete enrollment, it may expedite the enrollment process and increase communication with families. 3. Building leadership teams have the opportunity to collaborate with State Support Team 10 to review student attendance and discipline data and monitor the progress toward the district’s goal. According to goal two of the district improvement plan, “By 2021, DPS will achieve a 5-10% increase in staff and student attendance and 5% decrease in behavior referrals with a 1-2% annual incremental change as measured annually by district wide attendance and behavior data.” Interviews and district documents reveal State Support Team 10 consultants facilitate monthly meetings with building leadership teams, in buildings that received school improvement grants, to review student achievement, attendance and discipline data. • Building leadership teams use the district data dashboard system to review district and building-level student attendance and discipline data. Page 16 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • Building leadership teams complete the attendance and discipline data review form, created by the district, to guide the conversations in the monthly meeting and identify areas of concern. Building leadership teams share the attendance and discipline data with their teacher-based teams and collaborate to develop action steps to address barriers to learning and improve school climate. IMPACT: When the district provides opportunities for building leadership teams to review and monitor student attendance and discipline data, student attendance may increase and discipline incidents may decrease. Fiscal Management 1. The district has a five-year forecast that is transparent and comprehensive. A. According to the Ohio Department of Education, the five-year forecast “serves as a tool to assess the financial health of a school district. Each five-year forecast contains two components: 1) historical and projected financial data; and 2) notes to explain any significant changes or ‘assumptions’ the District used to develop the reported financial projections.” • The five-year forecast is divided into two sections: revenue and expenditures. The revenue is comprised of real estate taxes, state funding, and other fees. The expenditures are mainly salary and wages, benefits and purchased services. • A district’s revenue is made up of two main sources: local and state funding. • The Ohio Department of Education provides three objectives of the five-year forecast, one of which is to engage the local board of education and the community in long-range planning and discussions of financial issues facing the school district. B. According to interviews with the superintendent, treasurer and board of education members, the five-year forecast was approved on Oct. 10, 2017, by the board of education and submitted to the Ohio Department of Education by the Oct. 31, 2017, filing deadline. C. A review of the five-year forecast assumptions shows the district uses clear and concise narrative for each line of the revenue and expenditures. The district also uses graphs and charts to further describe each line of the five-year forecast assumptions through fiscal year 2022. • The district uses charts and graph to explain valuations for real estate tax receipts, the amount of state funding in specific categories, and other local revenue for each year of the forecast. • The district also uses charts and graphs to explain what is included for salaries, benefits, services, and supplies and materials. D. The district updates the five-year forecast in October and May each year and posts the updates on its website. IMPACT: When the district has a transparent and comprehensive five-year forecast and assumptions, it may benefit the district’s board of education and administration in planning for future budgetary needs of the district. CHALLENGES AND AREAS FOR GROWTH Leadership, Governance and Communication 1. The district does not consistently monitor and revise building improvement plans. The district has a process established to monitor building improvement plans but does not implement it with fidelity. • According to the Evaluation of Instructional Programs board policy AFE, the board directs the superintendent to develop and implement a systematic plan for the continuous evaluation of the instructional program against the goals established by the board. Page 17 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • According to board policy CA, Administrative Goals, the district’s administrative organization is designed so that all divisions and departments of the central office and all schools are part of a single system guided by board policies, which are implemented through the superintendent. It further states that each administrator is accountable for the effectiveness with which the administrative assignments are carried out. • The job description states the principal: o Guides and monitors the implementation of research-based instructional strategies; o Develops and communicates a shared school vision and goals with the staff; o Establishes and reinforces measurable goals to promote high levels of student and staff achievement; and o Models and provides resources to support staff contributions toward the attainment of school wide goals by monitoring progress through the use of data. • The district leadership team established a district improvement plan that includes adult implementation indicators and student performance indicators for academic areas. Adult implementation indicators provide a gauge to determine if a strategy is met in terms of changes in practices expected of adults. • The adult implementation indicators of the plan include: • o One hundred percent of teachers will deliver daily core instruction using district-approved instructional model, which includes posting and stating learning targets for students. o Staff attendance at each will be at 95 percent, as measured by monthly attendance reports The student implementation indicators of the plan include: o All students will demonstrate at least 1.5 years of growth or better per academic year on all district designed core curriculum assessments. o All students in grades preK-2 will demonstrate growth toward benchmarks or are on track in literacy/reading, as measured by grade-specific assessments. o Increase the percentage of ninth-12th-graders who are on track for graduation. o Student attendance at each building will improve incrementally by 5-10 percent. o Office discipline referrals will be reduced by 5 percent each school year. • The district adopted the Marzano Instructional Framework, which includes communicating learning targets to students and a standardized lesson plan format. • The district leadership team provided strategies, indicators and progress measures to BLTs to monitor implementation throughout the year. • Building leadership teams were to establish baseline measures in September 2017 with actual results recorded monthly for each building through May 2018. The building level teams do not consistently monitor progress measures and revise plans at the building level if adults are not implementing stated goals. • The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The scores range from 0-5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate the specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. o In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item measuring the teacher’s communication of clear learning objectives aligned to Ohio’s Learning Standards, the district received an average rating of .51 out of a possible score of 5. Page 18 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item measuring the teacher’s support of the learning needs of students through a variety of strategies, materials, and/or pacing that make learning accessible and challenging for the group, the district received an average rating of .56 out of a possible score of 5. o According to documents and interviews, the building leadership teams do not consistently report progress monitoring in all school buildings. • The district leadership team requires each building to complete monthly progress monitoring from September 2017 to May 2018. The progress measures template lists areas to be monitored each month, indicates the goal target and suggests evidence that can be used to collect data about the target. The district uses the progress measures template to track monthly data in six areas: • • o Staff attendance; o Teachers using the Marzano Instructional Framework; o Teachers using research-based instructional strategies; o Student achievement; o Student attendance; o Student discipline referrals. An analysis of the March progress measures to date indicate: o More than 21 percent did not complete measures on staff attendance; o More than 41 percent did not complete the measure on teachers using the Marzano Instructional Framework; o More than 64 percent did not complete the measure on teachers using research-based instructional strategies; o More than 32 percent did not complete the measure on student achievement; o More than 18 percent did not complete the measure on student attendance; o More than 18 percent did not complete the measure on student discipline. Further analysis of the March progress measures to date indicates: o Only 25 percent completed measures in all six areas; o Fourteen percent completed the measures in five areas; o Thirty-two percent completed the measures in four areas; o Fourteen percent completed the measures in three areas; o Four percent completed the measures in two areas; o Eleven percent did not complete any of the measures. IMPACT: When the district does not consistently monitor the implementation of its plans at the building level, it may not see increased adult implementation nor improved student achievement. Curriculum and Instruction 1. The district does not ensure the consistent delivery of evidence-based instruction to promote high achievement for all students. According to interviews with district administrators and lead teachers, teachers are not using evidencebased instructional strategies. Evidence-based instruction refers to strategies informed by educational research of school, teacher and student performance. Page 19 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • In the 2018 district CCIP Strategy 1.1 under Goal 1, the document reads, "All teachers will deliver research/evidence-based instruction, with a focus on literacy and mathematics, so that students will demonstrate at least 1.5 years academic growth." • Comments from focus group participants included: o "Teachers have resources and materials, but need help getting the skills needed to teach"; o "Improvement efforts need to focus on core instruction; set a foundation and then grow"; o "There has been little instruction, but only intervention"; and o "There is real resistance from teachers for having people in their rooms." Based on interviews and classroom observations, teachers do not consistently use evidence-based strategies and resources in all classrooms. • According to district administrators, the district purchased the current textbooks prior to the adoption of Ohio's Learning Standards, and those textbooks may not be aligned to the standards. • Students in the high school focus group shared there are not enough textbooks and curriculum-related hands-on materials such novels and computer programs. According to teachers and administrators, the district does not consistently address students' varied learning needs due to misaligned district initiatives and the frequent change of resources. • Participants in teacher focus groups shared they were required to use and discontinue use of a variety of instructional and intervention materials, including the Read 180 program, the Achieve 3000 program for differentiating instruction, the Imagine Learning program that uses technology to teach literacy and language, the Aleks program for individualized student assessment. • Comments from interviews with administrators and teacher focus group participants included: o "There is consistent inconsistency"; o "There have been a lot of new initiatives [implemented] all at once, including the new initiative Mind Play [an online software program designed to assist students with reading needs]"; and o "There has been little instruction, but [the focus has been] only [on] intervention." The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The scores range from 0-5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate the specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. • In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item measuring "classroom lessons and instructional delivery being aligned to Ohio's Learning Standards," the district received an average rating of .80 out of a possible score of 5. • In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item that measuring “the teacher conducts frequent formative assessments to check for understanding and inform instruction," the district received an average rating of 0.66 out of a possible score of IMPACT: When the district does not consistently deliver evidence-based instruction, it may hinder student learning and academic achievement. 2. The district does not have a process in place to monitor the implementation of the board-adopted curriculum. A. According to Board Policy, Section I – Instruction, "A standards-based curriculum is developed and implemented according to state academic content standards." B. The district leadership team adopted a standards-based curriculum, the Marzano framework and lesson plan template, to be used by all classroom teachers. Page 20 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • During building observations, the teachers did not consistently use Marzano lesson plan template in all buildings. • Elementary teacher focus group participants shared that the Marzano lesson plan template components require too much information to complete for each lesson.  Building leadership team meeting minutes show there are schools that have reduced the template to a check list to reduce the burden of using the template. • Teacher leaders shared the need for Marzano training that involves more details about the elements of planning a lesson. • During teacher interviews, participants shared that teachers who missed the summer institute had to “roll out the new curriculum without training.” D. The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The score from 0=5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate a specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. In more than 100 classroom observations, the district review team observed the following: o In 92 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “classroom lessons and instructional delivery are aligned to Ohio’s learning standard,” the district received an average rating of 0.79 out of a possible score of 5. o In 88 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “the teacher communicates clear learning objectives aligned to Ohio’s Learning Standards,” the district received an average rating of 0.51 out of a possible score of 5. IMPACT: When the district does not consistently monitor the implementation, the quality of instructional practices may vary among buildings. 3. The district does not consistently differentiate instructional practices to address learning needs of students. According to the Ohio Department of Education's Chronic Absenteeism Resource Guide, district and school teams use a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework "to create a continuum of supports and interventions that are differentiated in nature and intensity in order to match student academic, social, emotional and behavior needs." The multi-tiered system of support framework has a range of systemic strategies, on a three-tiered level, to identify struggling students early and intervene quickly. The tiers of intervention are described as: • Tier one - universal supports for all students; • Tier two - targeted interventions and support for identified students; and • Tier three - intensive interventions and support for identified students Based on classroom observations and interviews, teachers' differentiation of instruction varies across individual buildings and classrooms. • In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item, "the teacher supports the learning needs of students through a variety of strategies, materials, and/or pacing that make learning accessible and challenging for the group," the district received an average rating of 0.57 out of a possible score of 5. • In an interview with district administrators, it was shared that lower-performing schools lacked consistent differentiated instructional practices from classroom to classroom. • In elementary classrooms, differentiated instruction is only addressed by programs that have guidelines of specific reading passages to be used for intervention, such as in Achieve 3000 and Imagine. Page 21 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • Teachers do not use the student performance data, collected by the district's different assessment programs, to inform their decisions about grouping students and differentiating instruction. External consultants shared that various teacher-based teams "don't necessarily see data as a reflection of their teaching, but rather a reflection on the students' abilities." Although teachers are provided with student performance data, teacher-based team members do not have the knowledge of how to analyze the data. • According to district administrators, teachers are at a "novice level" with data analysis. • According to interviews, teachers do not have access to the database to look at student performance data. Therefore, teachers wait for building administrators or teacher leaders to provide them with their students' performance data. IMPACT: When the district does not differentiate instructional practices across all grades and content areas, it may not address gaps in student learning and may lead to increased gaps in student achievement. Assessment and Effective Use of Data 1. The district does not use common formative assessments to determine students' learning or the student performance data to modify instructional practices. Formative assessments are continuous instructional processes used by teachers to obtain evidence of student understanding to improve teaching or learning. According to research, the goal of formative assessment is to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can be used by instructors to improve their teaching and by students to improve their learning. Examples of formative assessments include: • Exit tickets, which are focused student questions related to the daily lesson that allow individual teachers to assess the effectiveness of their instruction; • Running records, a method of assessing reading that can be done quickly and effectively. It is an individually conducted formative assessment that is ongoing and curriculum based. It provides a graphic representation of a student’s oral reading, identifying patterns of effective and ineffective strategy use. • Student work, assignments and projects that students complete to demonstrate what they have learned. Student work is often kept in a portfolio. • Checks for understanding, used during a lesson, determine if students understand what is being taught. Hand signals, such as “Thumbs up or thumbs down” can be used as an indicator of understanding. Teachers can give a short quiz to check for comprehension. Teachers also can ask students to summarize or paraphrase (orally, visually or otherwise) important concepts from the lesson to determine their levels of understanding. Students can hold up response cards (such as index cards, whiteboards, magnetic boards) simultaneously to indicate their response to a question. This allows teachers a quick visual way to note the answers of individual students while teaching the whole group. Benchmark assessments are short tests administered throughout the school year that give teachers immediate feedback on how students are meeting academic standards. According to interviews, teachers have not created common formative assessments in reading and mathematics across grades K-12. At the time of the review, there was no evidence presented that indicated the teacher-based teams use current formative data to make instructional decisions. A review of teacher-based team minutes shows the district is inconsistent in the use of formative assessments in the classrooms. A review of a random sample of 30 teacher-based team minutes indicated more than 53 percent did not include the discussion of student performance data garnered from formative assessments. Page 22 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 According to the professional development calendar, the district has not provided training on assessment literacy or creating assessments. The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The scores range from 0 to 5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate a specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. • During the observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item measuring “teachers conducting frequent formative assessments to check for understanding and inform instruction,” the district received an average rating of 0.65 out of a possible score of 5. According to interviews and focus group participants, the district has a data dashboard, which is an online electronic platform that houses student performance data from varied assessment sources. At the time of the review, it was revealed that teachers are not able to easily access the data dashboard and only principals have access to the data dashboard. According to interviews and documents, the teacher-based teams use summative data, such as Northwest Evaluation Association Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). However, those assessments cannot appropriately inform instructional practices on a weekly basis. • According to research, summative assessments provide teachers with a means to evaluate student learning at the end of an instructional period and compare it to a district benchmark or state standards. IMPACT: When the district’s teacher-based teams do not consistently use student performance data to make timely and informed decisions on classroom instructional practices, it may decrease the likelihood of improving student achievement. 2. The district does not consistently use technology for student learning. According to the district's technology plan, in 2016, the district purchased Chromebooks for all students in grades K-12; however, at the time of the review, the use of the Chromebooks for teaching and learning was limited. The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The scores range from 0-5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate the specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. • In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item, “The teacher uses available technology to support instruction and enhance learning,” the district received an average rating of 0.45 out of a possible score of 5. C. According to classroom observations conducted by the district review team, 96 percent of classes did not show adequate levels of implementation of teachers using available technology to support instruction and enhance learning. • In observations of more than 100 classrooms by review team members, on the item, “Students use technology as a tool for learning and/or understanding,” the district received an average rating of 0.54 out of a possible score of 5. D. According to classroom observations conducted by the district review team, 97 percent of classes did not show adequate levels of implementation of students using technology as a tool for learning and/or understanding. IMPACT: When the district does not consistently use available technology for teaching and learning, gaps in student achievement may widen, and improvements in learning and teaching may not be realized. 3. The district does not consistently implement the Ohio Improvement Process with fidelity in Focus and Priority school buildings. Page 23 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 A. According to the Ohio Department of Education, “A Focus school is a building that receives Title 1 funds and has one of the state’s largest achievement gaps in student-performance and graduation rates. A Focus school receives support and monitoring from its regional state support team to implement a school improvement plan using the Ohio Improvement Process.” B. According to the Ohio Department of Education, “A Priority school is one that ranks in the lowest 5 percent of schools in Ohio in student academic performance. The Priority school’s district will be directed to assign district staff to help facilitate the Ohio Improvement Process and help implement the Priority School’s improvement plan.” C. According to the district’s building leadership team meeting minutes from priority and focus schools, the district does not monitor adult implementation indicators of the district improvement plan. • A review of building leadership team minutes from 13 of the district’s 19 focus and priority school buildings revealed 85 percent of the priority and focus buildings did not analyze adult implementation data. D. A review of 58 teacher-based team minutes from 16 of the district’s 19 focus and priority school building for utilization of formative assessments revealed: • The district does not develop common pre-test/formative assessments, based upon learning targets, prior to instruction. • In grades 7-12 school buildings, teacher-based team minutes did not reflect the intended use of the Ohio Improvement Process. The data analyzed by these teams included class failures and attendance rather than a focus on academic learning. • Teacher-based team meeting minutes did not reflect instructional strategies aligned to content of Ohio’s Learning Standards. • Instructional strategies to be implemented did not reveal specific and measurable learning targets for analyzing the impact of the strategy on student learning needs. IMPACT: When the district does not consistently implement the Ohio Improvement Process, there is no means to adequately determine areas of need or barriers to student learning and improvement. Human Resources and Professional Development 1. The district does not have processes in place to recruit, select or assign highly qualified staff. According to interviews with district and building administrators, they shared concerns that the office of human resources has not been responsive to their hiring needs. A review of the Dec. 11, 2017, cabinet meeting agenda showed the district has not filled 47 classroom assignments. Of the unfilled assignments, the district has 18 openings for intervention specialists, “a critical area for supporting special students across the district” mentioned during interviews with building and district leadership. • At the time of the review, district administrators and principal focus groups participants indicated “a number of teaching positions” had not been filled from the beginning of the school year. A review of documents confirmed the office of human resources completed an internal HR Gap Analysis Worksheet during the fall of 2017 to identify what is needed to allow the office to better recruit, select and assign new staff. The information collected revealed the following six priority areas: o Personnel – The number of staff needed to support the office of human resources around recruiting, reviewing personnel files, on-boarding of new employees and analyzing data; o Expertise/need experience – Personnel file uploads and electronic system updating, onboarding/recruitment staff and data analysis; Page 24 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 o Materials/equipment - District employee handbook update; o Processes – Payroll processes are moved to payroll, on-boarding multiple employee contracts, and human resources office web design, leadership; o Leadership – Plan and implement the redesign of the human resources department and its practices; and o Other – Loss of staff time to cover phones in other areas of the building. • The worksheet document indicated department inefficiencies in recruiting, planning, processing new hires, current organization of the department and response to phone calls, as well as the department’s lack of standard operating procedures. • Interviews with district administrators and principal focus group participants revealed that delays in the identification of potential candidates by the office of human resources resulted in candidates withdrawing their interest in working in the district. The district leadership authorized an external “Audit of HR Operational Effectiveness, April-May 2018” with ConnexHR, LLC. ConnexHR, LLC consultants interviewed the top three leaders in the office of human resources “to assess the current state of human capital service delivery.” The May 10, 2018, report findings of this audit include: • “The department has no human capital strategy or vision but rather is consumed with 'fire-fighting' the latest issues.” • “There is a lack of standardized training and documented standard operating procedures for school administrators.” o “They (principals) do not have a good understanding of the procedures which results in inconsistent service delivery.” • “Human resource management is not aligned by function with multiple employees doing similar work which does not clearly delineate roles and responsibilities on the team.” • The district has not defined the roles and responsibilities of the offices of human resources and payroll for on-boarding, assigning and payment of staff. IMPACT: When the district does not have processes in place to recruit, select and assign highly qualified staff, vacancies may remain unfilled and, therefore, limit student access to effective instruction. 2. The district’s rate of teacher absences does not allow for consistent classroom instruction. Board policy GBCB-R-1 Attendance and Punctuality reads, in part, “the ability to provide our children and young people with high quality education depends greatly on the reliability of our employees. Attendance and punctuality are an important aspect of an employee’s job performance.” It further states, "…absences and tardiness in any department diminishes our success in meeting our obligations to our students and places an additional burden on coworkers.” The district improvement plan goal 2 states, "by 2021 [the district] will achieve a five to ten percent increase in staff and student attendance with a one to two percent annual gain." A review of documents and interviews with district administrators indicated the district has, on average, 120 teacher absences per day, with Fridays averaging 190 teacher absences out of approximately 970 classroom teachers. A review of teacher attendance documents across all school buildings shows absences, because of classroom vacancies (no contract teacher assigned), varies from 0 percent in 10 buildings and a range of 1.33 percent up to 43.69 percent of total absences a result of vacancies at 18 buildings. According to interviews with district administrators, the district contracts with an outside vendor, Parallel Employment Group, to provide classroom substitutes. Page 25 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • The district negotiated with the company to ensure 90 percent of teaching vacancies are filled daily. According to interviews with district administrator and focus group participants, the district does not employ substitute teachers in long-term positions for more than 59 days. According to Ohio Revised Code 3319.10, employment and status of substitute teachers, a teacher employed as a substitute with an assignment to one specific teaching position “shall after sixty days of service be granted sick leave, visiting days, and other local privileges granted to regular teachers including a salary not less than the minimum salary on the current adopted salary schedule.” Comments from focus group participants included: • "Substitute teacher assignment more than 60 days means they get a contract.” • “I didn't know we (principals) could request a good substitute could stay beyond 60 days." IMPACT: When the district's teachers are absent from their classrooms, continuity of instruction may be lost by substitutes who may be unfamiliar with overall instructional plans. 3. The district does not effectively support a teacher evaluation process. The district utilizes the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System, which consists of two parts: teacher performance and student growth. Teacher performance accounts for up to 50 percent of the evaluation and includes what a teacher does to focus on learning: use of assessment data, prior content knowledge of students, lesson delivery, differentiation, use of resources, classroom environment (student rapport and classroom management), assessment of student learning and professional responsibilities. The remaining part of the evaluation measures student growth; what a student learns over time in the course. • The two parts combined provide a final teacher rating of either accomplished (the highest rating), skilled, developing or ineffective. • The performance portion of the rating is based on classroom observations and other interactions with an evaluator; usually, the teacher’s principal or assistant principal. • The student growth portion is based on test results including state tests, vendor standardized tests, and or locally developed tests, used when other tests are not available in certain content areas. A review of the teacher evaluation ratings and student achievement data on the 2016-2017 state report card for Dayton Public Schools indicate that teacher evaluation ratings and student performance results do not match. Teacher evaluation ratings were at state averages and student performance was 12 to 21 percent below similar districts to Dayton and 30 to 39 percent below state averages. • A review of teacher’s combined ratings for their performance and student growth measures from the 2016-2017 district report card showed 45.3 percent rated accomplished, the highest rating, 38.6 percent rated skilled, 14.3 percent rated developing and 0.8 percent rated ineffective. o A total of 83.9 percent of the teachers in Dayton Public School earned a rating of skilled or higher for the 2016-2017 school year. o A review of student achievement on the report card shows the district earned an F in Indicators Met, as no grade level scored as proficient on any state test, and an F on the Performance Index, which looks at individual student scores. o A total of 72.2 percent of the students scored below proficient on the 2016-2017 Dayton Public Schools report card. According to teacher focus group participants, observations, which occur two times per year, do not reflect what they typically do in their classrooms. Teachers indicated the evaluation doesn’t change their practice and one described it as a “dog and pony show.” In principal focus group interviews, participants indicated they have not received any recalibrations training for rating teachers on the teaching standards, including an “understanding of what effective classroom instruction looks like.” Page 26 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 IMPACT: When the district does not effectively utilize a teacher evaluation system, teacher instructional needs may not be identified and appropriate supports provided. 4. The district does not prioritize professional development based on the district improvement plan goals and monitor for effectiveness. A. Although the district has developed a Comprehensive Professional Development Plan 2016-2019, the plan does not consistently support educators in achieving the goals and strategies identified in the 2017-2018 district improvement plan, based on documents reviewed. • • • According to the 2017-2018 district improvement plan, professional development was identified to address Goal 1, Strategy 1.1: All teachers will deliver research/evidence-based instruction, with a focus on literacy and mathematics, so that students will demonstrate at least 1.5 years of growth or better per academic year. However, the professional development identified in the district improvement plan did not specifically support teachers’ delivery of researched based instruction in reading and math and included: o “provide supports to staff engaged in the co-teaching models via professional development;” o “provide professional development and coaching supports to staff as they work to successfully implement 1:1 technology in grades K-8;” o “through [professional development] and coaching, build teachers’ and administrators’’ capacity to understand and use instruction guides in language arts, math, science and social studies;” and o “provide training and coaching supports to TBT and BLT members on instructional practices that have an effect size of .4 or greater.” Based on a review of the Comprehensive Professional Development Plan 2016-2019, under the category of Curriculum Instruction and Assessment Professional Development, specific professional development offerings on reading and math researched based instructional strategies were limited to the following 8 options out of a total of 49: o Third Grade Guarantee Professional Learning Community for K-3 teachers; o Secondary English Language Arts for 7-12 teachers; o Math 3-5 for grades 3-5 teachers; o Mathematical practices for math teachers; o Differentiated Instruction/Formative Assessment for classroom teachers and paraprofessionals; o Marzano for all teachers; o Gradual Release for select teachers; and o Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol for all teachers. Principal focus group participants commented that “there is no connection of professional development with instruction. People do what they want.” A. According to interviews, documents, and district review team classroom observations, the professional development provided did not result in the regular implementation of “researched based instructional practices.” • iObservation is an instructional and leadership improvement system that collects, manages, and reports longitudinal data from classroom walkthroughs. Page 27 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 o • • In a random sampling of principal and central office iObservation results, teachers provided learning targets, a research based practice to improve learning, 33 percent or less of the time. The district review team conducted classroom observations in all school buildings in the district to examine instruction and student learning. A 6-point scale was used to evaluate each setting. The score from 0=5, with 0 meaning no evidence to indicate a specific practice is occurring and 5 representing exemplary evidence of adult practice. In more than 100 classroom observations, the district review team observed the following: o In 92 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “classroom lessons and instructional delivery are aligned to Ohio’s learning standard,” the district received an average rating of 0.79 out of a possible score of 5. o In 88 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “the teacher communicates clear learning objectives aligned to Ohio’s Learning Standards,” the district received an average rating of 0.51 out of a possible score of 5. o In 85 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “the teacher supports the learning needs of students through a variety of strategies, materials, and/or pacing that make learning accessible and challenging for the group,” the district received an average rating of 0.56 out of a possible score of 5. o In 83 classrooms observed, on the item that states, “the teacher conducts frequent formative assessments to check for understanding and informing instruction,” the district received an average rating of 0.65 out of a possible score of 5. In the 2018 annual Dayton Public Schools Teacher’s Perception Survey conducted by Miami University, only 47 percent of teachers stated that they saw improved student academics. B. Although the professional development plan indicated “academic and instructional based training must be tiered for the diverse knowledge and skill levels of the teaching staff,” documents reviewed indicated a onesize-fits-all model. C. Based on document reviews and interviews with district administrators, the district did not consistently evaluate professional development according to plan guidelines, Five Levels of Evaluating Professional Development (Guskey) that included: • “Gage participants reactions to the professional development;” • “Assess participants level of learning;” • “Assess over time to determine the organization support and change;” • “Assess participants’ use of new knowledge and skills;” and • “Measure student outcomes.” D. At the time of the review, the district did not use the Ohio Standards for Professional Development (2015) as a guide to plan, implement, or monitor professional development. IMPACT: When the district does not prioritize professional development to support the district improvement plan goals and monitor for impact, educators may not develop instructional practices that result in increased student achievement. Student Supports 1. The district does not have a multi-tiered system of support to address student academic and behavior needs. Page 28 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 According to the Ohio Department of Education's Chronic Absenteeism Resource Guide, district and school teams use a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework "to create a continuum of supports and interventions that are differentiated in nature and intensity in order to match student academic, social, emotional and behavior needs." The multi-tiered system of support framework has a range of systemic strategies, on a three-tiered level, to identify struggling students early and intervene quickly. The tiers of intervention are described as: • Tier one - universal supports for all students; • Tier two - targeted interventions and support for identified students; and • Tier three - intensive interventions and support for identified students. There is limited evidence of implementation of district goal one, action step 1.1.2, as written in the 20172018 district improvement plan. The goals states, “the district will create, implement and monitor a comprehensive multi-tiered system of supports to address the needs of gifted, struggling, off-track, and/or chronically absent students and provide success plans to close the achievement gaps.” • At the time of the review, the district did not provide evidence of procedures or practices for early identification and intervention for students needing academic or behavior support. • At the time of the review, the district did not provide evidence of a process to refer students for interventions or for a suspected disability. • Comments from interviews with administrators, teachers and support staff included: o “We do not have a [multi-tiered systems of support]”; o “Training was provided a few years ago for an intervention assistance team chairperson at each school, but [the district has not offered] a refresher course”; o “There are a few schools using the [intervention assistance team] model”; and o “We do not have enough tier two interventions.” According to documents reviewed and interviews, the district did not require teachers to attend professional development trainings on multi-tiered systems of support. According to Goal 2, Strategy 2.1.3, “the district will employ a full-time positive school climate lead to implement and sustain positive school climate in every building." • At the time of the review, the district had not assigned positive school climate leads. Goal 2, Strategy 2.1.7 states “the district will institute an on-board training for all new staff and administrators in the positive school climate framework.” • At the time of the review, the district did not present evidence of on-boarding training for new staff and administrators. District policy file JP states the “district implements [positive behavior interventions and support] on a system-wide basis and the board directs the superintendent/designee to develop a system that is consistent with the components set forth in the State Board of Education’s policy on positive behavior interventions and supports.” • According to documents and interviews, the district refers to the positive behavioral intervention and supports framework as the positive school climate framework. o • Positive school climate is defined by the district as a framework for improving student behavior by teaching students the expected behaviors in all school settings. It uses positively stated rules and guidelines to establish a common behavioral language for students and staff. According to the Ohio Department of Education policy on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support, and Restraint and Seclusion adopted by the State Board of Education, Jan. 15, 2013, positive behavioral interventions and support is: Page 29 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 o • • "A decision-making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of evidence-based academic and behavioral practices for improving important academic and behavior outcomes for all students." Although reviewed district documents, interviews with district and building administrators and focus group participants indicate the positive school climate/positive behavior intervention supports framework implementation began before 2010, implementation of the framework remains inconsistent. o According to the Nov. 6, 2017, Positive School Climate Principal Rollout plan, 10 district schools remain in the exploration and adoption stage of implementation, nine schools are in the installation stage, seven schools are in the tier one stage and two schools are in the tier two stage. o The district last revised a positive behavior intervention supports implementation plan in 2010 and there is no current revision, based on documents reviewed. o There is no information on positive school climate or positive intervention supports for families in handbooks or on the district website. o Teachers referred to the positive school climate program as the replacement for the Restorative Justice Program “when the staff member leading the program left the district.” The state model policy emphasizes the importance of parent communication and involvement in the planning and implementation of the positive behavior intervention supports framework. o At the time of the review, the district did not provide evidence of parent involvement with the implementation of positive behavioral interventions and support. IMPACT: When the district does not implement multi-tiered systems of support, it may not readily identify struggling students or intervene quickly to reduce non-academic and academic barriers that may impede learning. 2. The district does not consistently implement practices and action plans to close the gap in achievement and graduation rate for students with disabilities. According to the 2016-2017 state report card, the four-year graduation rate for the district’s students with disabilities declined 6.8 percent from 63.9 percent in 2016 to 57.1 percent in 2017. According to the district 2017-2018 Ohio Special Education Profile report, which notifies districts of their performance on key indicators related to kindergarten readiness, achievement levels, preparedness for life beyond high school and services for children with disabilities, students with disabilities in the district did not meet the following indicators: • The district did not meet indicator 1 under essential question number three, “Are youth with disabilities prepared for life, work and postsecondary?” Based on 2015-2016 data, district students with disabilities four-year graduation rate was 60.4 percent, and this was below the target rate of 82.8 percent. • • The district did not meet the 2016-2017 target for indicator 4a, which measures the percent of districts identified by the state as having a significant discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of students with disabilities in comparison to students without disabilities. o The district corrective action plan to address the discrepancy identifies the root cause as a need for training for building principals/building staffs in understanding the behaviors of students with disabilities and implementing alternative measures other than out-of-school suspension when addressing their behaviors. o The district did not present evidence of training or a plan for training at the time of the review. The district did not meet the target for indicator 5a for the past four years. The indicator measures the percent of children with individualized education programs ages 6 through 21 served inside the general education classroom 80 percent or more of the day. Page 30 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 o During the 2014-2015 school year, 36.58 percent of district students were served in the general education classroom 80 percent or more of the day, compared to the target rate of 63.00 percent. o During the 2015-2016 school year, 38.89 percent of district student were served in the general education classroom 80 percent or more of the day, compared to the target rate of 63.50 percent. o During the 2016-2017 school year, 40.27 percent of district students were served in the general education classroom 80 percent or more of the day, compared to the target rate of 64 percent. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, passage rates for students with disabilities on Ohio’s State Tests (reading and math) have declined over the last three years. • The passage rate for students with disabilities on the 2016-2017 state reading test is 11.3 percent, compared to 13.7 percent on 2014-2015 test. • The passage rate for students with disabilities on the 2016-2017 state mathematics test is 9.4 percent compared to 11.1 percent on the 2014-2015 test. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the district is not closing the achievement gap in reading, math and graduation rates for students with disabilities. • Students with disabilities did not meet the annual measurable objectives targets set by the state for 2016-2017 school year. Annual Measurable Objectives measure the academic performance of specific groups of students, such as racial and demographic groups. Each of these groups is compared to the expected performance goals for that subgroup to determine if gaps exist. o The annual measurable objective target for reading was 77.1 percent, but 11.3 percent of the district’s students with disabilities scored proficient or higher on the reading Ohio’s State Tests. o The annual measurable objective target for math was 72 percent but 9.4 percent of the district’s students with disabilities scored proficient or higher on the mathematics Ohio’s State Tests. o The annual measurable objective target for graduation was 85.1 percent, and district students with disabilities graduation rate was 60.4 percent. The district goal one action step 1.14 reads, “The district will provide supports to staff engaged in the coteaching models via professional development to increase the number of students with disabilities who have access to grade level content." • Co-teaching is described by the Ohio Department of Education as classroom instruction delivered by two teachers, typically a “general education teacher and special education teacher working together to teach all students in the classroom, including students with disabilities. These teachers work together, sharing their ideas and planning lessons. In a co-teaching classroom, there is a mutual respect and partnership between both teachers to present learning in diverse ways based on the needs of the students.” • Although, a document titled, Inclusive Practices Initiative Phase II, 2016-2017, states that “the 13 district participating schools from Phase 1 will implement inclusive practices with ongoing support from OEC (Office of Exceptional Children) and consultants,” the district is not practicing co-teaching. o • District review team members conducted more than 100 classroom observations in all district schools during the May 7-11, 2018, review. Co-teaching was not observed by reviewers. An observation report by external special education consultants which consisted of classroom observations in ten schools at all building levels revealed inconsistent implementation of co-teaching. A sampling of observation notes includes: Page 31 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • o "Several co-teaching partners have not been able to find time to actually plan lessons together"; o "Specialists typically have no common planning time and have duties for at least an hour a day"; o "Specialists are partnering with too many teachers at too many grade levels to be effective"; o "Although, common planning time is available, some teams are not utilizing the time in an effective manner"; and o "Intervention specialists are being pulled from their responsibilities with their co-teachers." District and school staff shared the following comments related to the status of co-teaching in the district. o “It’s set up to fail… [There is frequent] staff turnover [which reduces consistency in the practice]”; and o “[Although there was] training and rollout, [there is] no sustainability or ongoing support.” IMPACT: When the district does not implement practices and corrective action plans to close the achievement gaps in reading, math and graduation rate for students with disabilities, the gaps may widen. 3. The district does not effectively and consistently support student attendance and engage them in making connections with learning and college and career preparedness. A. Although, there is evidence of the district’s implementation of the requirements of House Bill 410, which encourages and supports districts in preventing excessive absences and truancy, the district policy is not aligned with the new legislation. • According to the current district truancy policy file JEDA, student absences are recorded as days absent, while new legislation requires that absences be tracked in hours to determine habitual and chronic absenteeism. • The district website truancy information refers to the requirements of Senate Bill 181 rather than the current House Bill 410. B. According to a district student attendance report for the week ending May 4, 2018, the district is not on track to meet its attendance goal of a 5-10 percent increase in student attendance with a 1-2 percent annual incremental change. C. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the district chronic absenteeism rate has steadily increased over the last three years from 27.5 percent in 2014-2015 to 30.7 percent in 2016-2017. D. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the district student attendance rate is below the state average. • The district student attendance rate for 2016-2017 is 90.9 percent compared to the state average of 93.9 percent. E. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the four-year graduation rate for students with disabilities dropped from 63.9 percent in 2015-2016 to 57.1 percent in 2016-2017. F. According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the four-year graduation rate for English learners decreased by 13.3 percent from 64 percent in 2015-2016 to 40.7 percent in 2016-2017. G. The district graduation rate is lower than similar districts and the state average. • According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the district’s four-year graduation rate for all students is 72.6 percent compared to 76.6 percent for similar districts and 83.6 percent for the state average. Page 32 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • According to the 2016-2017 Ohio School Report Card, the district’s five-year graduation rate for all students is 80.7 percent compared to 81.3 percent for similar districts and 85.6 for the state average. H. According to the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Accountability, the number of students in the district dropping out of school has increased each year over the last three years. I. • 233 students dropped out of school in the 2014-2015 school year; • 236 students dropped out of school in the 2015-2016 school year; and • 306 students dropped out of school in the 2016- 2017 school year. The district review team completed classroom observations throughout the district at all grade levels during the review. An instructional inventory tool was used to record observations. A 6-point scale was used to score each item, with 0 described as no evidence was found to indicate the specific practice is occurring, and a rating of 5 indicating exemplary evidence of adult practices was observed. • Item number 10 of the inventory states, “The teacher helps students make connections to career and college preparedness and real-world experiences.” • Out of 115 classrooms observed, the district earned an average rating of 0.44 on item 10, which indicates there was little evidence observed of teachers engaging students in connecting learning with their own preparedness for success. J. The district career advising policy, file IJA, states that the “Board views career advising as helping students understand themselves relative to their abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, strengths and limitations. This process is meant to assist students in the development of their potential and their decisions relating to educational and career matters.” • The career advising policy further states the career advising plan is “made available to students, parents, guardians/custodians, local postsecondary institutions and residents of the District” and “posted in a prominent location on the District website.” o At the time of the review, the district career advising policy was not posted on the district website. o There is no evidence of communication of the career advising policy to residents of the district. • According to the career advising policy, the district will create a plan to provide career advising to students in grades 6-12. The district did not present any evidence of a plan at the time of the review. • Document career advising provided to each student. o • No evidence of documentation of career advising was presented at the time of the review. Prepare students for their transition from high school to their postsecondary destinations. o According to interviews with students, parents and support staff, the district does not have a transition plan for students moving between school levels or to postsecondary institutions. IMPACT: When the district does not consistently implement policies and practices to engage students in making connections with school and college and career preparedness, students may disengage and not be prepared for success upon graduation. Fiscal Management 1. The district does not follow the purchasing procedures outlined in the board-approved policy and procedures. A. The board of education policy, DJF-R Purchasing Procedures, states, “The Board designates the Superintendent as the purchasing agent...It is the responsibility of the requisitioner to provide an adequate description of the item(s) purchased so that the purchasing agent may be able to prepare the specifications and to procure most expeditiously and economically the desired commodity and/or service.” Page 33 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 B. The Dayton Public Schools Purchasing Procedures Manual Commitment Authority PM-020 states, “By annual resolution, the Board’s authority for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies and services will be extended to the District’s administration through approval of the annual budget and appropriations, except that the board will approve all purchases over $5,000, except for textbooks, educational equipment and supplies.” • Minutes from board of education meetings and interviews demonstrate the district presents requisitions to the board of education for review during the first meeting of on the second Tuesday of the month. The board of education will approve requisitions at the business meeting on the third Tuesday of the month. C. A review of board of education minutes revealed the board of education approved purchase requisitions that, according to policy, met the exception rule for board approval and were able to be approved by the superintendent, as the purchasing agent, to expedite purchases. • According to the Feb. 20, 2018, board of education minutes, the district submitted a requisition to purchase gifted testing materials, an educational supply, in the amount of $22,887.40. This purchase qualified as an exception to the board approval process. • According to the March 20, 2018, board of education minutes, the district submitted a requisition to purchase Destiny License Renewal, an educational supply, in the amount of $14,292.94. This purchase qualified as an exception to the board approval process. • According to the March 20, 2018, board of education minutes, the district submitted a requisition to purchase interactive touch panel display, educational equipment, in the amount of $6,300.00. This purchase qualified as an exception to the board approval process. D. According to interviews with district administrators, principals and district staff stated: • “[The] purchasing process is very convoluted.” • “I split my purchase orders to be under $5,000.” • “[It takes] up to three weeks to get the go ahead to make a purchase. It depends on the size and if the vendor is registered.” • “I make my orders for up to $4,999.” • “The purchase order could take two to three days for approval if all parties approve on time or longer if over the $5,000 limit.” IMPACT: When the district does not align its purchasing procedures to board policies, it may reduce its efficiency of meeting the direct and indirect education needs of the students. 2. The district does not have a comprehensive and participatory annual budget process to include district goals. A comprehensive budget includes all aspects of the financial activity of the school district and includes data from the previous fiscal year, current fiscal year and the next fiscal year, which are aligned to the financial goals of the district. Review of board policy, DA Fiscal Management Goals, states; “The board seeks to achieve the following goals: engage in thorough advanced planning, with staff and community involvement, in order to develop budgets and to guide expenditures to achieve the greatest educational returns for the dollars expended; establish levels of funding that provide high quality education for the district’s students; use the best available techniques for budget development and management.” The budget forms provided during the review do not include goals of the district, previous fiscal year or next fiscal year data. The documents provided contained the reports from the accounting system that provided the account codes, account names and current year amounts. • At the time of the review, the district uses a form titled Non-Payroll Budget Requests, which is given to the executive cabinet for the budget process. The executive cabinet is to fill in the form with the Page 34 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 requested amounts for the next fiscal year for services, supplies, capital and other — basically any type of expenditure that is not a salary or fringe benefits. The forms do not contain the previous fiscal year expenditures, the current fiscal year budget, account codes, account names or the goals of the district. A participatory budget will have participation from teachers, department supervisors and building and district administrators. • According to interviews, building principals stated, “They are not involved in the budgeting process, the budget amount is usually the same as previous year, they have no say in what supplies are purchased for their building, and they are not given the opportunity to provide the upper administration a wish list for the building needs.” • According to interviews with focus groups, they have not given input to the building principals for any budget. • The review of the Non-Payroll Budget Request showed they had one person that authored the request. IMPACT: By not having a budgeting process that is comprehensive and participatory, the expenditures may not meet the needs or goals of the district. Page 35 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Dayton Public School District Review Recommendations Leadership, Governance and Communication 1. Establish measures of accountability and hold district administrators and principals responsible for the consistent monitoring of school improvement plans by: • Setting standards, clear guidelines, completion dates and submission timelines to be followed; • Aligning administrator standards and evaluation criteria to the accountability measures; • Providing coaching and individualized professional development supports as needed; and • Offering district-wide opportunities for administrators to collaborate, communicate and share ideas of effective monitoring processes. BENEFIT: When the district consistently monitors the district and building improvement plans, adult implementation may increase and student achievement may improve. 2. Ensure ongoing professional development for principals aligned to district initiatives meets the Ohio Standards for Professional Development and includes both coaching and mentoring opportunities. BENEFIT: When the district provides ongoing professional development and support to strengthen leadership, adult implementation and student achievement may improve. Curriculum and Instruction 1. Provide professional development to teaching staff on evidence-based instructional practices. Align curriculum materials to Ohio's Learning Standards. Create a means and process to monitor instruction on an ongoing basis. Determine what specific programs the district will use to gather common student performance data. BENEFIT: By providing training on evidence-based instruction and monitoring teachers' implementation of those strategies, the district may promote increased student achievement. 2. Establish a committee representing the curriculum and instruction department, building administrators and teachers to help direct and support the work of curriculum and instruction across the district. Complete the update of the district's written curriculum documents and oversee the alignment assessments and instructional strategies to Ohio's Learning Standards. Review and revise the process for the identification and board adoption of evidence-based instructional materials and resources. Include a process for "roll out" of the new materials and resources that have been approved. Establish a clear, concise process for principals and teacher leaders to monitor and address evidence-based instruction in all classrooms. BENEFIT: By aligning curriculum resources to Ohio's Learning standards and creating a process to monitor the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices, the district may increase the likelihood of students succeeding in college and career endeavors. 3. Ensure the district identifies evidence-based instructional practices and strategies that address all students' learning or behavioral needs. Align all district instructional materials and resources to meet the different learning needs of the students. Provide teachers with access to student performance data and provide ongoing professional development for teachers on analyzing data and using it to guide and differentiate instructional practices. BENEFIT: By differentiating instruction in all classrooms and across all content areas, the district may reduce barriers to student learning and better meet the needs of diverse learners. Assessment and the Use of Data 1. Provide professional development on assessment literacy to guide the creation of grade-level formative assessments. Form a committee to create district-wide formative assessments across grade Page 36 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 levels and core content areas. Provide continual support to staff on the development and use of a balanced system of formative and benchmark assessments that guides instruction. Provide ongoing professional development targeting the design and implementation of intervention and enrichment instructional practices based on formative and benchmark assessment data. BENEFIT: When a district provides training on the development and use of authentic formative and benchmark assessments, teachers may be able to use the data garnered from the assessments to assess student learning and modify instructional strategies to increase student achievement. 2. Conduct an inventory of technology that is available for use in the classroom by teachers and students. Ensure all technology in the classrooms is being used on an ongoing basis to enhance student learning. Ensure that staff is properly trained on the operation of the technology they use. BENEFIT: The effective use of technology in the classrooms could supplement classroom instruction and assist with student learning and growth. 3. Contact Region 10 State Support Team consultants to provide technical assistance in using data to inform instructional practices, as well as professional development and guidance in monitoring the teams’ fidelity of implementing the Ohio Improvement Process. Ensure the district leadership team and building leadership teams monitor adult implementation and student achievement in monthly meetings and provide documented feedback to teacher-based teams to strengthen instruction. BENEFIT: When a district monitors and evaluates the schools’ implementation of the Ohio Improvement Process, there is a system of accountability to ensure teachers may develop the skills to use data to determine interventions and students may demonstrate proficiency in the learning standards. Human Resources and Professional Development 1. Develop, execute and monitor a plan for the human resources department that includes its organizational structure, identified services and delineation of responsibilities to proactively recruit, select and assign highquality staff. BENEFIT: Structured processes for the office of human resources aligned across departments and the district may allow for strategic recruiting, selecting and assigning high-quality staff. 2. Develop and monitor strategies to be used at the building and district levels to reinforce staff attendance at the targeted 95 percent level. Follow up on a regular basis with employees when they are absent. Work with the Dayton Education Association Leadership to identify possible language in the contract that may influence staff attendance. BENEFIT: When the district teacher attendance rates are improved, students may have access to consistent instructional practices. 3. Provide training for all evaluators and educators in the effective use of the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES), especially as it relates to identifying effective lesson delivery, assessment, student engagement and classroom environments. Emphasize the use of the teacher growth and improvement plans to improve instruction using student achievement data developed from self and district evaluations. Follow the district’s strategic plan goal 2 tactic which states, “Assess DPS performance evaluation tools and redesign system, where appropriate, to better measure instructional effectiveness.” BENEFIT: Providing appropriate professional development to professionals using OTES with a professional growth emphasis on improving instruction may increase student achievement. 4. Embed professional development within the district improvement plan to support identified goals and strategies and to ensure professional development addresses identified adult changes in practices necessary for meeting student learning targets. Utilize the Ohio Standards for Professional Development as a guide to define and deliver professional learning, including tiered practices to address individual teacher needs based on Page 37 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 knowledge, skills, and experience. Systematically evaluate the impact of professional development on classroom instructional changes as outlined in the Five Levels of Evaluating Professional Development (Guskey) and make timely adjustments accordingly. BENEFIT: When the district implements and evaluates professional development that supports the improvement plan goals and mirrors standards of effectiveness, educators may be prepared to deliver evidence-based practices that improve student learning. Student Supports 1. Convene a committee, including representatives from district and building leaders, general and special education staff, student support staff, State Support Team 10, and other appropriate stakeholders, to define and create a district policy for the adoption and implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports for prevention, early identification and interventions to address student’s academic, behavior and health needs. Include the Positive Behavior Intervention Supports framework as part of the comprehensive multitiered systems of support. Consider using the Ohio Improvement Process and Positive Behavior Intervention Supports crosswalk tool available on the Ohio Department of Education website. Collaborate with State Support Team 10 to develop an implementation plan including training and support needed. Consider using the form templates in the One Stop Data System as district-adopted forms for academic and non-academic interventions and monitoring tools. Using electronic forms in the system will create a user-friendly streamlined process with built in accountability. BENEFIT: When the district develops and implements policies, practices and procedures to provide multi-tiered systems of support to identify struggling students and intervene quickly to address academic and non-academic barriers to learning, student achievement may increase. 2. Review and determine the level of implementation of the district-adopted inclusionary special education service delivery model. Update and revise the current inclusionary practices action plan to address current needs. Evaluate and revise the district special education continuum of services model and the delivery of services to students with disabilities to ensure students are being served in the least restricted environment. Collaborate with external consultants and State Support Team 10 to address training and support implementation of inclusionary practices with fidelity. Review student and intervention specialists’ schedules to ensure they allow for co-planning to co-serve with the general education teacher in an inclusive classroom. BENEFIT: When the district provides professional development and support for consistent implementation of the selected special education service delivery model and serves students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, student engagement and achievement may improve. 3. Update the district attendance policies to align with House Bill 410 requirements. Integrate the recently developed tiered interventions for excessive absences and truancy into the multi-tiered system of supports. Provide training for appropriate staff to develop attendance intervention plans to reduce barriers to regular student attendance. Identify community partners and providers to refer students and families for resources and support. Research area resources and continue to collaborate with the City of Learners, Learn to Earn Dayton and other community partners to create more opportunities to engage students, including students with disabilities and English learners, in their own education and planning for future careers (i.e., mentoring, internships, alternative programming, more electives). Implement the district career advising policy with support from local partners and State Support Team 10. BENEFIT: When the district implements policies and practices to support student attendance and engagement in making connections to college and career preparedness, students may be prepared for success upon graduation. Fiscal Management 1. Review current policy and assure that district personnel are aware of the guidelines in purchasing/procurement practices to be as efficient as possible in the purchasing process. Page 38 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 BENEFIT: By reviewing best practices and current processes, the district may become more efficient and cost effective. 2. Develop a comprehensive and participatory budget process that provides opportunities for principals and district administrators to communicate with the superintendent, treasurer and executive cabinet regarding the needs of the building or departments. Provide financial data that includes the previous-year expenditures and account codes for the building and district administrators to review so administrators understand future budgeting needs and align the process to the district’s goals and objectives. BENEFIT: The inclusion of building staff and principals in the budgeting process can increase the likelihood that building budgets achieve the stated outcomes in the form of improved student learning and the delivery of student services. Page 39 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Appendix A: Review Team, Review Activities, Site Visit Schedule The review was conducted from May 7 to May 11, 2018 by the following team of Ohio Department of Education staff members and independent consultants. 1. Dr. Clairie Huff-Franklin, Director, Academic Distress Commissions and Education Reform 2. Dr. Joanne Kerekes, Leadership Governance and Communication 3. Bernie Burchett, Curriculum and Instruction 4. Timothy Jenkins, Assessment and Effective Use of Data 5. Greg Sampson, Human Resources and Professional Development 6. Karen Hopper, Student Supports 7. Cynthia Ritter, Fiscal Management District Review Activities The following activities were conducted during the review: Interviews • Accountability and Federal Program Director • Accounting Clerks • Assistant Fire Chief • Associate Director of EMIS • Associate Director of Professional Development • Associate Superintendent of Operations • Association President • Athletic Director • Board of Education Members • Chief of Curriculum and Professional Development • Chief of Exceptional Children • Chief of Police • Chief of Schools • City Manager • Data Manager • Director of Business Operations • Director of Communications • Director of State and Federal Programs • Director of Student Information Systems • District Leadership Team • District Ohio Improvement Process Facilitators • EMIS Data Technician • Executive Director of Curriculum • Executive Director Safety and Security • Facilities Maintenance Supervisor • Fire Chief • Fiscal Office Staff • Human Resources Department Support Personnel • Human Resources Director of Certified Staff Page 40 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Human Resources Director of Classified Staff Human Resources Executive Director Human Resources Executive Secretary Instructional Coaches Instructional Technology Director Internal Auditor Intervention Specialists Law Clerk Local Professional Development Committee director Nurse Ohio Improvement Process Director Operations Directors for dining, transportation, safety and facilities Payroll Clerks Physical Therapist Resident Educator Mentors Safety and Security Coordinator School Counselors School Improvement Grant Director School Psychologist School Social Worker/Truancy Personnel Speech Therapist State Support Team 10 Superintendent Superintendent Executive Secretary Teacher Leaders Technology Coordinator Technology Facilitator, Communications Testing Coordinator Title I Staff Treasurer Focus Groups • Elementary teachers • Middle School teachers • High School teachers • Elementary building principals • Middle School building principals • High School building principals • Students • Parents External partners of the district that included behavior and mental health partners, local community college dean, local business partners, and government officials Onsite Visits Page 41 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 • • 30 Building Observations 129 Classrooms observations at all school levels Page 42 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Dayton Public Schools District 115 S. Ludlow Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 Official District Review Schedule – May 7-11, 2018 (As of May 29, 2018) (Please be sure that interviewees selected for each interview block can answer questions about elementary, middle and high schools.) Notes: Team members may use laptops to take notes during interviews, focus groups, etc. Except for meetings with leadership teams, supervising staff will not be scheduled in interviews or focus groups with those under their supervision. Day 1 – Monday, May 7, 2018 Time 7:30-7:55 8:30-4:00 Activity Time ODE DRT Team Meeting Room Location: 6S_117 ALL DRT Members Activity Activity Time Classroom and Building Observations will be conducted by the Classroom/Building Observers Meeting with the Superintendent and staff 8:00-8:15 8:30-9:25 Room Location: Community Room Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Director of Teaching and Learning Chief of Exceptional Children Treasurer Chief of Schools Executive Director of Human Resources ALL DRT MEMBERS Assessment & Data Interview Room Location: 4S_440 District Technology Coordinator 8:30-9:25 Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Superintendent 8:30-9:25 Student Supports Interview Room Location: 3S_305 Director of Truancy Treasurer A&D, C&I LG&C, FM SS, HR/PD Page 43 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time 9:30-10:25 Activity Time Activity Curriculum Interview 9:30-10:25 Room Location: 4S_440 Special Education/Gifted Programs Chief of Exceptional Children Assoc. Director Leadership /Fiscal Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Business Leaders City Commissioners Community Leaders President, Chamber of Commerce NAACP A&D, C&I Association President LG&C, FM, SS Human Resources Executive Director Time 9:30-10:25 Activity Human Resources Interview Room Location: 3S_305 HR Exec. Dir Assoc. Dir, PD HR/PD 10:30-11:15 Associate Director, Professional Development 10:30-11:15 LG&C, FM HR/PD, C&I 11:00-12:05 DRT Meeting/Working Lunch ALL DRT MEMBERS 12:15-1:10 Student Supports Interview 12:15-1:10 Room Location: 6S_116 Psychologist Speech Therapist Jones, Physical Therapist Nurse 12:15-1:10 Leadership Interview Room Location: 3S_305 Executive Director, Curriculum Chief for Curriculum & PD LG&C, HR/PD 1:15-2:10 SS Curriculum & Instruction Interview 1:15-2:10 Room Location: 3S_305 Executive Director, Curriculum and Chief for Curric & PD Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_150 Operations Assoc. Superintendent FM, LG&C 1:15-2:10 Human Resources Interview Room Location: 4S_440 HR Support Specialist HR Executive Secretary HR/PD, SS C&I, A&D Page 44 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time 2:15-3:25 3:30-4:25 Activity Time Curriculum & Instruction Interview 2:15-3:25 Room Location: 3S_305 Director, Instructional Technology Instructional Support Specialist Director, School Improvement Grant C&I, HR/PD 2 Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Technology Facilitator Communications Director of Communications LG&C, FM, A&D Student Supports Interview 4:30-5:25 Room Location: 6S_150 Title 1 Staff School-based Pre-K Representative 3:30-4:25 Time 2:15-3:25 Activity Assessment & Data Interview Room Location: 4S_440 Chief of Exceptional Children Director of Athletics Chief of Schools District OIP Facilitators LG&C, HR/PD, FM A&D, SS Student Support Interview Room Location: 4S_440 3:30-4:25 HR/PD Interview Room Location: 3S_305 New Hires (non-certified) Emergency Management, Safety & Security Coordinator Assoc. Director, Student Information Systems HR/PD, C&I SS 4:30-5:25 SS, C&I 1,2 Board of Education Interview Room Location: 6S_116 4:30 – 5:00 Activity Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 5:00 – 5:30 HR/PD Interview Room Location: 3S_305 4:30-5:25 Assessment & Data Interview Room Location: 4S_440 Associate Director of Professional Development District Testing Coordinators HR/PD, C&I (4:30-4:55) Board of Education Interview Room Location: 6S_116 A&D, C&I (5:00-5:25) Board Members Board Members LG&C, FM LG&C, FM Page 45 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time 5:30-6:30 Activity Board of Education Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Board President Vice President Time Activity Board of Education Interview Room Location: 6S-150 Board Members Time Activity Board of Education Interview Room Location: 3S_305 Board Member 5:30 -6:30 5:15: -6:15 A&D, HR/PD LG&C, C&I, SS FM Review Team Debrief and Dinner (Order-in) Room Location: 6S_117 6:35 ALL DRT MEMBERS District Review Schedule Day 2 – Tuesday, May 8, 2018 Activity Time 7:30-8:00 7:30-4:00 8:00-8:30 8:30-9:25 Activity Time Activity Time DRT Meeting ALL DRT MEMBERS Room Location: 6S_117 Classroom and Building Observations will be conducted by the Classroom/Building Observers Leadership, Interview Room Location: 6S_150 Room Location: Treasurer 6S_116 8:00 – 9:15 City Manager FM LG&C HR Review of Personnel Files: Leadership Interview Student Supports Room Location: 6S_116 Interview 8:00-9:00 8:00-9:30 Room Location: HR Conference Room Room Location: 4S_440 Safety & Security School Counselors District personnel will assist with online Exec Dir. access Police Chief Fire Chief SROs LG&C SS, C&I HR/PD Page 46 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time 8:00-9:30 Activity Activity Time Elementary School RIMP Review – A&D Location: 3S-305 District personnel will assist with online access Middle School Student Focus Group Elementary Student Focus Wright Brothers Middle Group students – 1 staff 9:40-10:40 School – 1361 Huffman 9:40-10:40 Edison Elementary – 228 N. Ave Broadway St. LG&C, A&D SS, HR/PD Travel Time from Schools 10:45-10:55 ALL DRT MEMBERS Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 11:00-12:00 Activity Time Accountability & Federal Programs Consultants 9:40-10:40 FM, C&I HR File Review Room Location: HR Office Student Supports Interview Room Location – 4S_440 11:00-12:00 11:00-12:00 High School Student Focus Group Stivers – 1313 E. 5th Street Associate Directors of Exceptional Children HR/PD LG&C, FM, C&I 12:05-1:55 SS, A&D DRT Meeting/Working Lunch ALL DRT MEMBERS Location: 6S_117 Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 12:05-12:55 1:00-1:55 2:00-2:55 Law Clerk Curriculum & Instruction Interview Room Location: 4S_440 12:05-12:55 OIP Director Fiscal Interview Room Location: 3S_305 12:05-12:55 LG&C C&I Assessment & Data Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Demonstration of district online tools used for data collection and analysis HR Director, Classified Staff HR Director, Certified Staff HR Administrator FM, HR/PD A&D, SS, LG&C, C&I Student Supports Interview Room Location: 3S_305 Page 47 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time Activity Activity Time Activity Time Associate Superintendent 3:00-4:10 SS, FM, LG&C Elementary Teachers Focus Group Room Location: 3S_305 4:15-5:25 Middle and High School Teachers Focus Group Room Location: 4S_440 ALL DRT MEMBERS ALL DRT MEMBERS Parent Focus Group (include those who may have left district; please, no district personnel at this meeting) ****please limit the number of attendees (first 25 parents will be admitted) 5:15-6:20 Room Location: 4S_415 ALL DRT MEMBERS 6:35 Review Team Debrief Room Location: 6S_117 ALL DRT MEMBERS District Review Schedule Day 3 – Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Time Activity Classroom Visits 7:30-12:00 ALL DRT MEMBERS 7:30-4:00 Time Activity Time Activity Classroom and Building Observations will be conducted by the Classroom/Building Observers Fiscal Interview Room Location: 6S_116 11:00-11:30 12:00-12:55 Human Resources Staff FM Working/Lunch Page 48 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Time 1:00-2:00 Activity ALL DRT MEMBERS Time Activity OIP Director SIG Director 2:05-2:55 2:05-2:55 LG&C, SS Review HR Personnel Files (eTPES) Room Location: HR Conference Room 3:15-4:30 Activity State Support Team 10 Room Location: 3S-305 ALL DRT MEMBERS Leadership Interview Room Location: 3S_305 2:05-2:55 Time Fiscal Interview Room Location: 4S_440 Assessment & Data Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Treasurer’s Staff Accounts Payable Budget Dir. Purchasing Dir. Accounts Receivable Senior Accountant Risk Mgmt Dir. Elementary, Middle and High School Testing Coordinators FM 2:05-2:55 A&D, C&I District personnel will assist with online access HR/PD Elementary Schools Principals/Assistant Principals Focus Group Room Location: 3S_305 ALL DRT MEMBERS Room Location: 6S_117 4:35-5:50 Middle and High Schools Principals/Assistant Principals Focus Group Room Location: 3S_305 ALL DRT MEMBERS 6:00 ALL DRT MEMBERS Page 49 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 District Review Schedule Day 4 – Thursday, May 10, 2018 Time Activity Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Time Activity Time Activity 7:30-8:30 OIP Facilitator LG&C 8:00-8:30 DRT Meeting Room Location: 6S_117 ALL DRT MEMBERS 7:30-4:00 Classroom and Building Observations will be conducted by the Classroom/Building Observers Fiscal Management Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Supervisors Facilities, Transportation, 8:30-9:30 Safety Plan Curriculum & Instruction Interview Room Location: 3S_305 8:30-9:55 Building Level Curriculum & Instruction Specialists/Team (Teacher Leaders) FM, SS C&I, A&D, HR/PD, LG&C (8:30-9:30) Page 50 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 District Review Schedule Day 5 – Friday, May 11, 2018 Time 9:35-10:35 Activity Leadership Interview Room Location: 4S_440 Union President Activity Fiscal Management Interview Room Location: 6S_116 Time 10:40-11:40 LPDC Coordinator Resident Educator Mentors HR/PD, A&D 10:40-11:40 11:00-12:00 Intervention Specialists Activity Leadership Interview Room Location: Superintendent’s Office Superintendent LG&C FM, SS, C&I (10:40-11:00) Student Supports Interview Room Location: 4S_440 LG&C, SS, FM HR/PD Interview Room Location: 3S_305 11:0012:00 Associate Director, EMIS Program Support Specialist Time Leadership Interview Room Location: 6S_116 11:45-12:15 Superintendent’s Exec Assistant SS, C&I LG&C, FM Working Lunch/Document Fiscal Management Interview 12:00Review Superintendent 12:15-12:45 12:55 Room Location: 6S_117 ALL DRT MEMBERS FM Students Supports Interview Room Location: Community Room Community Partners Focus Group (including Social Services, Mental Health Agencies, After School Programs higher 1:00-2:15 education partners) ALL DRT MEMBERS Emerging Themes Meeting 2:30-3:30 Room Location: 6S_116 ALL DRT MEMBERS Page 51 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Key CACI – Center for Accountability and Continuous Improvement DRT – District Review Team A&D = Assessment & Effective Use of Data C&I = Curriculum & Instruction FM = Fiscal Management HR/PD = Human Resources/Professional Development LG&C = Leadership, Governance & Communication SS = Student Supports Page 52 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Appendix B: Figures and Tables Related to Accountability Figure B-1: Dayton City SD Enrollment by Subgroup (Race) 65.7% 70.0% 65.2% 64.7% 64.6% 65.4% 66.1% 60.0% 50.0% Black 40.0% Hispanic 25.9% 25.8% 25.1% 30.0% 25.5% 25.0% 24.8% Multiracial White 20.0% 5.5% 10.0% 0.0% 5.1% 5.0% 3.8% 3.4% 3.2% 2011-2012 2012-2013 5.0% 4.8% 4.3% 2013-2014 4.2% 2014-2015 2015-2016 4.5% 3.9% 2016-2017 Figure B-2: Dayton City SD Enrollment Trend 14500 14300 14100 13900 13700 13500 13300 13100 12900 12700 12500 14168 13902 13772 13549 13325 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Page 53 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-3: Dayton City SD Enrollment by Subgroup (Special Populations) 94% 94% 20% 19% 10% 6% 5% 0% 4% 4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 19% 19% 20% 9% 8% 7% 5% 7% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 2011-2012 2012-2013 Disabled 5… 2013-2014 Disadvantaged 6% 2014-2015 6% 2015-2016 Gifted 2016-2017 LEP Page 54 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-4: 2016 - 2017 Enrollment Location for Students Who Live in the Dayton City School District Attendance Area 11% 0% 1% 2% Resident Other Dist Open Enrollment Other Dist Not Open Enrollment Online School 24% Site Based Community School 51% DORP EdChoice Cleveland Scholarship EdChoice Expansion Program Special Needs Scholarship 4% 4% 3% Figure B-4 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 55 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-5: Dayton City SD Annual Measureable Obejctives by Subgroup in 2016-2017 72.5% 60.4% 73.3% 22.2% 25.1% 40.3% 40.2% 11.3% 9.4% 10.0% 39.5% 37.0% 20.0% 27.4% 26.3% 30.0% 27.8% 26.5% 40.0% 31.0% 29.2% 50.0% 21.2% 19.7% 60.0% 72.4% 72.6% 70.0% 37.8% 48.6% 80.0% 75.8% 90.0% 0.0% Reading Proficiency Percentage Math Proficiency Percentage 4 year Graduation Rate Figure B-5 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 56 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 73.3% 74.3% 70.5% 75.8% 71.4% 66.0% 61.5% 64.0% 72.4% 75.0% 72.7% 40.7% 60.0% 64.0% 75.0% 59.1% 70.0% 60.4% 63.9% 57.1% 72.5% 75.3% 73.8% 60.0% 80.0% 72.6% 75.0% 72.2% 90.0% 77.8% 81.8% Dayton City SD Subgroup Four-Year Graduation Trends (Racial) 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2015 2016 44.4% 32.1% 39.5% 63.9% 64.1% 72.4% 64.4% 63.0% 45.8% 49.2% 28.3% 16.8% 22.2% 20.0% 35.8% 27.6% 31.0% 30.0% 55.5% 57.2% 38.0% 24.8% 27.4% 40.0% 23.8% 23.4% 13.7% 9.7% 11.3% 50.0% 53.1% 54.8% 34.9% 21.1% 21.2% 60.0% 48.5% 37.8% 70.0% 38.7% 25.7% 27.8% 80.0% 57.3% 58.1% Figure B-6: Dayton City SD Reading Passing Rate Trends by Subgroup 66.7% 65.2% 47.2% 36.3% 40.3% Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability 10.0% 0.0% 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Figure B-6 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 57 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 20.0% 33.8% 28.0% 37.0% 38.3% 33.9% 40.2% 54.8% 56.3% 49.4% 48.6% 50.5% 51.0% 38.9% 42.5% 26.0% 24.6% 25.1% 30.0% 35.2% 30.7% 29.2% 40.0% 42.4% 43.4% 28.9% 21.6% 26.3% 50.0% 17.2% 18.0% 11.1% 9.6% 9.4% 60.0% 44.3% 44.4% 29.6% 22.7% 26.5% 70.0% 39.7% 39.2% 25.3% 17.6% 19.7% 80.0% 55.9% 48.6% 75.9% Figure B-7: Dayton City SD Mathematics Passing Rate Trends by Subgroup 10.0% 0.0% 2012-2013 2015-2016 2013-2014 2016-2017 2014-2015 Figure B-7 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability 55.2% 36.9% 21.3% 17.4% 40.2% 31.0% 39.8% 24.6% 20.0% 26.2% 59.2% 7th Grade 30.0% 50.3% 60.2% 6th Grade 29.9% 34.1% 45.4% 49.0% 30.4% 40.0% 34.8% 50.0% 44.0% 4th Grade 60.0% 67.7% 62.8% 3rd Grade 70.0% 52.6% 63.8% 80.0% 58.3% Figure B-8: Dayton City SD Reading Performance Comparisons by Grade Level 10.0% 0.0% 5th Grade District Similar Districts 8th Grade HS ELA1 HS ELA2 State Page 58 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 28.8% 21.3% 33.5% 25.7% 26.2% 30.1% 61.7% 64.1% 20.1% 17.4% 20.0% 28.0% 27.2% 24.6% 06 29.9% 31.2% 55.1% 54.3% 56.4% 57.8% 05 18.9% 30.0% 25.9% 29.0% 34.1% 40.0% 30.8% 30.1% 30.4% 27.2% 34.8% 50.0% 39.5% 39.3% 60.0% 60.7% 56.5% 70.0% 54.8% 59.5% 58.0% Figure B-9: Dayton Reading Performance Trends by Grade Level 10.0% 0.0% 03 04 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 07 08 2015-2016 ELA1 ELA2 2016-2017 Figure B-9 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Figure B-10: Dayton City School District Fall 2016-2017 English Value-Added Report Page 59 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-10 Source: SAS® EVAAS web application, SAS Institute Inc. Page 60 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 10.0% 38.1% 5.7% 14.3% 21.2% 16.5% 24.5% 20.0% 42.9% 45.3% 54.9% 20.2% 30.6% 25.0% 34.7% 40.8% 56.1% 60.2% 61.6% 72.4% 30.0% 26.1% 40.0% 43.3% 50.0% 22.0% 38.9% 60.0% 35.4% 54.3% 70.0% 54.6% 70.6% 80.0% Figure B-11: Dayton City SD Mathematics Performance Comparisons by Grade Level 0.0% 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade HS Algebra HS 1 Geometry District Similar Districts State Math 1 Figure B-12: Dayton Mathematics Performance Trends by Grade 67.2% 80.0% 17.3% 14.3% 30.2% 22.4% 16.5% 18.7% 21.5% 20.2% 48.6% 50.5% 39.9% 38.7% 32.4% 26.2% 25.0% 26.1% 28.1% 39.6% 43.7% 15.9% 20.0% 28.3% 28.0% 20.4% 18.0% 22.0% 30.0% 24.9% 27.4% 35.4% 40.0% 46.8% 40.3% 50.0% 26.8% 32.6% 38.9% 60.0% 45.1% 48.3% 70.0% 10.0% 0.0% 03 04 05 2012-2013 06 2013-2014 07 2014-201508 ALG1 GEOM Figure B-12: Source: Ohio School Report Card; Archived Report Cards Page 61 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-13: Dayton City School District Fall 2016-2017 Math Value-Added Report Figure B-13 Source: SAS® EVAAS web application, SAS Institute Inc. Page 62 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-14: Dayton City SD Proficiency Percentage Trend 48.3% 52.0% 60.0% 23.2% 6.9% 3.7% 0.1% 7.6% 3.1% 0.2% 16.3% 22.2% 14.5% 3.3% 0.0% 0.1% 9.5% 12.0% 7.0% 18.5% 22.7% 26.0% 31.2% 0.0% 10.0% 12.2% 20.0% 6.8% 30.0% 23.3% 26.3% 31.0% 40.0% 37.3% 31.3% 50.0% 0.0% 2012-2013 2013-2014 Percentage Limited 2014-2015 Percentage Basic 2015-2016 2016-2017 Percentage Proficient Page 63 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-15: Dayton City SD Graduation Rate Comparison 90.0% 85.6% 85.0% 83.6% 81.3% 80.7% 80.0% 76.6% 75.0% 72.6% 70.0% 65.0% 4 Year Grad Rate District Similar District State 5 Year Grad Rate Figure B-15 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Figure B-16: Dayton City SD Graduation Cohort Rates 82.0% 80.3% 80.7% 80.0% 77.9% 78.0% 78.0% 75.0% 76.0% 74.0% 72.2% 72.2% Class of 2013 Class of 2014 72.6% 72.0% 69.9% 70.0% 68.0% 66.0% 64.0% Class of 2012 Class of 2015 Class of 2016 4 Year Grad Rate 5 Year Grad Rate Figure B-16 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 64 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-17: Dayton City SD Number of Dropouts Grades 7 - 12 350 306 300 250 233 236 2014-2015 2015-2016 209 200 150 100 50 0 2013-2014 2016-2017 Figure B-17 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 65 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 60.0 50.0 70.0 64.1 66.3 71.6 71.2 80.0 73.7 Figure B-18: Dayton City SD Trends in Disciplinary Actions per 100 Students As compared to State and Similar Districts 33.7 22.0 23.6 31.8 21.5 30.0 21.4 23.4 40.0 26.5 32.4 50.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2013 2014 2015 District Similar Districts Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability 2016 2017 State Page 66 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-19: Dayton City SD Prepared for Success 2-Year Comparison 4.5 4.6 AP Exam 3 or Better AP Participation 10.1 13.5 3 2.2 Honors Diploma Industry Recognized Credentials IB Exam Score of 4 or Better 2.4 2.9 0.2 0 2.3 2.8 IB Participation 5.1 5.2 SAT Participation 1.4 1.6 SAT: Remediation Free 51.2 52.5 ACT Participation 20.2 Dual enrollment credit 31.4 6.1 6.6 ACT: Remediation Free 0 10 20 30 2016 40 50 60 2017 Figure B-19 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Figure B-20: Dayton City School District Attendance Rates Compared to State 95.0% 94.3% 94.1% 94.1% 93.9% 94.0% 93.0% 92.0% 92.0% 92.0% 91.9% 90.9% 91.0% 90.0% 89.0% 2013-2014 2014-2015 Dayton City 2015-2016 2016-2017 State Figure B-20 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 67 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-21: Dayton City SD Chronic Absenteeism Rate 30.7% 31.0% 30.0% 29.0% 28.0% 27.0% 27.5% 26.7% 26.7% 26.0% 25.0% 24.0% 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Figure B-21 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 68 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-22: Dayton City School District Absenteeism 11% 42% 20% Satisfactory (<5.1%) At Risk (5.1% - 9.9%) Chronic (10-19.9%) Severe (20+%) 27% Page 69 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 29.9% 32.7% 34.4% 38.9% 11 12 30.3% 29.6% 28.4% 33.5% 29.7% 29.2% 35.3% 36.8% 26.0% 26.1% 25.6% 31.3% 04 23.9% 29.5% 24.4% 28.3% 03 21.8% 21.9% 20.5% 25.0% 02 20.0% 22.2% 20.3% 19.6% 23.6% 31.0% 22.4% 20.4% 17.1% 25.0% 19.9% 19.1% 20.9% 22.5% 30.0% 20.2% 23.4% 20.0% 26.4% 35.0% 27.3% 25.7% 24.8% 27.5% 40.0% 33.7% 34.6% 33.9% 34.8% 45.0% 37.6% 42.1% 39.5% 37.8% Figure B-23: Dayton City SD Absenteeism Rate By Grade Level Over Time 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 01 05 06 2013-2014 07 08 2014-2015 09 10 KG Figure B-23 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Figure B-24: Dayton City School District Percent of On-Track Students – Kindergarten through Third Grade 2-Year Comparison Page 70 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 2016 - 2017 Report Card for Dayton City School District - Mew Prmfabii'e pas Overview Achievement Progress The Literacy component looks at how successful Itie school is at slIuggling readers on track to pro?ciencyr in drird grade and beyond. 6) In your 0 Details of Measure 450 Students Moved to On 0 1,888 Students Track - Started Off Track 4o 5 am aveneqtnvedi?o Wigwam by ?re erro'ofwgrade. (I: -Remained OffTracic Moved to On Track 2016 - 2017' Report Card for II II II Dayton City School District Gap Closing Graduation Rate l(-3 ljteracy Prepared for Success (E 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee 0n-Track by Grade Level Ohio's Third Grade Reading Guarantee ensures that students are succesle in reading before moving on to fourlh grade. Schools must provide supports for struggling readers in early grades. If a child appears to be falling behind in reading, the school will immediately start a Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan. The program ensures that every struggling reader gets the support he or she needs to learn and achieve. Students have multiple opportunities to meet promotion requirements including meeting a minimum promotion score on the reading portion of the state's third grade English language arts test given twice during the school year. Studenm have an additional opportunity to take doe state assessment in the summer, as well as a district-determined altemative assessment. How many third graders met the Third Grade Reading 80.89/0 Guarantee requirements for promotion to 4111 grade? How many third graders scored proficient on the state 34 89/0 Reading test? View macabre PM: Overview Achievement Progress The Literacy component looks at how successful ?1e school is at getting slIuggling readers on track to proficiencyr in third grade and beyond. 0 In your Details of Measure Year 1 Year 2 40 3 Year 3 1o I Overall ?cnmb II II II A II a? -Remained O?Track -Moved to On Track Department of Education Ohio Gap Closing Graduation Rate ljteraqr Prepared for Success 0 3rd Grade Reading Guarantee On-Track by Grade Level Kindergarten . . 69.3% 30.7% Diagnostic First Grade Diagnostic 416% 524% On-Track Not On-Track I Second Grade . . 55.5% 44.5% Diagnostic I Third Grade . . 20.2% ?1.El% Diagnostic 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% This chart shows the overall percentage of students that were for each grade level reading diagnostic in 2016-2017. Page 71 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT September 18, 2018 Figure B-25 Dayton City SD Expenditures in 2017 Nonclassroom, 37.8% Classroom, 62.2% Similar District Expenditures in 2017 Nonclassroom, 32.3% Classroom, 67.7% State Average Expenditures in 2017 Nonclassroom, 32.4% Classroom, 67.6% Page 72 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-25A Dayton City SD Sources of Revenue in 2017 Other Non-Tax 3% Local 20% Federal 12% State 65% Figure B-25A Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 73 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Figure B-26: Dayton City SD Operating Spending Per Equivalent Pupil Compared to the State $10,400.00 $10,266.90 $10,200.00 $10,000.00 $9,800.00 $9,600.00 $9,400.00 $9,148.90 $9,200.00 $9,000.00 $8,800.00 $8,600.00 $8,400.00 Dayton City State Average Figure B-26 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 74 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Table B-1: Dayton City School District Teacher Demographic Data Table B-1 Source: Ohio Department of Education Office of Accountability Page 75 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Table C-4: Dayton City School District-FY 2017 Profile Report/Cupp Report Expenditure per Student Comparison Table C-4 Source: FY 2017 CUPP Report Expenditure Data (Adapted from ODE District Profile explanation) Administration Expenditure per Pupil covers all expenditures associated with the day to day operation of the school buildings and the central offices as far as the administrative personnel and functions are concerned. Items of expenditure in this category include salaries and benefits provided to all administrative staff as well as other associated administrative costs. Data Source: Report Card 2017 Building Operation Expenditure per Pupil covers all items of expenditure relating to the operation of the school buildings and the central offices. These include the costs of utilities and the maintenance and the upkeep of physical buildings. Data Source: Report Card 2017. Instructional Expenditure per Pupil includes all the costs associated with the actual service of instructional delivery to the students. These items strictly apply to the school buildings and do not include costs associated with the central office. They include the salaries and benefits of the teaching personnel and the other instructional expenses. Data Source: Report Card 2017. Pupil Support Expenditure per Pupil includes the expenses associated with the provision of services other than instructional that tend to enhance the developmental processes of the students. These cover a range of activities such as student counseling, psychological services, health services, social work services etc. Data Source: Report Card 2017. Staff Support Expenditure per Pupil includes all the costs associated with the provision of support services to school districts’ staff. These include in-service programs, instructional improvement services, meetings, payments for additional trainings and courses to improve staff effectiveness and productivity. Data Source: Report Card 2017. Note: The expenditure figures provided in the report only pertain to the public-school districts and do not reflect expenditures associated with the operation of start-up community schools or other educational entities. Only the expenditures of community schools that are sponsored by public school districts (conversion schools) are included in these figures as these community schools are the creations of the sponsoring public-school districts and as such the public school districts are responsible for their operations. Traditionally, the calculation of the expenditure per pupil has been predicated on dividing the total cost of a category of expenditure by the total yearend ADM of the district. In recent years a second approach to this calculation has also been developed in which the ADM base of the calculation is first adjusted based on various measures of need of the students involved. In this manner students who are economically disadvantaged or have special needs or participate in additional educational programs are weighted more heavily than regular students based on the notion that these students require higher levels of investment to be educated. Depending on the context, one of these calculations may be preferred over the other. Historically we have included the unweighted calculation of the per-pupil revenue on the District Profile Report and to keep the report consistent over time the updates reflect the same per-pupil calculations. Users can consult the Report Card source on ODE website if they wish the both calculations. This situation also applies to the Revenue by Source information also provided on this report. Page 76 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Table C-5: Dayton City School District-FY 2017 Profile Report/Cupp Report District Financial Status from Five-Year Forecast Data Table C-5 Source: FY 2017 CUPP Report District Financial Status from Five Year Forecast Data (Adapted from ODE District Profile explanation) Salaries as Percent of Operating Expenditures indicates the percent of the total operating expenditure of the districts that goes to personnel salaries. Source: Fiscal year 2017 Five Year Forecast file. Fringe Benefits as Percent of Operating Expenditures shows the percent of the total operating expenditure of the districts that goes to provision of fringe benefits such as health insurance and retirement benefits. Source: Fiscal year 2017 Five Year Forecast file. Purchased Services as Percent of Operating Expenditures shows the percent of the total operating expenditure devoted to the purchase of various services such as food services. Source: Fiscal year 2017 Five Year Forecast file. Supplies and Materials as Percent of Operating Expenditures shows the percent of the operating expenditures devoted to the purchase of supplies and materials. Source: Fiscal year 2017 Five Year Forecast file. Other Expenses as Percent of Operating Expenditures shows the percent of the total operating expenditures devoted to other expenses not categorized above. Source: Fiscal year 2017 Five Year Forecast file. Page 77 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Appendix C: Additional Figures and Tables Page 78 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Appendix D: Inventory Forms and Building Observation Form 6 Point Scale of Evidence for the Diagnostic Profile Taken from the School Improvement Diagnostic Review Diagnostic indicators describe effective practices that are critical to improving engagement for all students. Each profile question asks the reviewer to indicate the degree to which a school or district demonstrates a specific practice. In particular, the reviewer is determining the frequency and quality of the specific practice and the level of evidence in data sources reviewed. Category Score Definition No evidence found to indicate the specific practice is occurring. Lowest 0 Rarely found evidence of adult practice and/or is of poor quality as it engages a limited number of students 1 2 3 4 Highest 5 No Data Collected Insufficient evidence of adult practice; quality demonstrates preliminary stages of implementation in few settings; impact for some students’ engagement; evidence can be found in some sources of data Acceptable evidence of adult practice; quality demonstrates adequate level of implementation in more than half of the settings; impact for many students’ engagement; evidence can be observed in many sources of data Strong evidence of adult practice; quality demonstrates good levels of implementation in at least 75% of the settings; impact for most students’ engagement; evidence can be observed in most sources of data Exemplary evidence of adult practice; quality demonstrates superior levels of implementation in at least 90% of the settings; impact for most students’ engagement; evidence can be triangulated across multiple sources of data. The reviewer did not collect evidence on this practice or practice does not apply to this school, and therefore reviewer is unable to select a score for this particular practice. Selecting “No Data Collected” will not reduce the school or district’s profile score. Page 79 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Standards I, II and V: Instructional Inventory Date: Time in: District IRN: Total time: School: # Students: #Teachers: Class: EL Gen ED Subject: Building: Pre-K ES MS HS Alternative School #Assistants: SWD Self Contained Part of Lesson Observed: Beginning Instructional Inventory Items Grade Level: Middle 0 1 End Title I Observer: No Data Collected CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT 2 3 4 5 Evidence 1. The tone of interactions between teacher and students and among students is positive and respectful. 2. Behavioral standards are clearly communicated and disruptions, if present, are managed effectively and equitably. 3. The physical arrangement of the classroom ensures a positive learning environment and provides all students with access to learning activities. 4. Classroom procedures are established and maintained to create a safe physical environment and promote smooth transitions among all classroom activities. 5. Multiple resources are available to meet all students’ diverse learning needs. TEACHING 6. Classroom lessons and instructional delivery are aligned to Ohio’s Learning Standards. 7. The teacher communicates clear learning objectives aligned to Ohio's Learning Standards. 8. The teacher demonstrates knowledge of subject and content. 9. The teacher provides opportunities for students to engage in discussion and activities aligned to Webb's Page 80 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Instructional Inventory Items 0 1 2 3 4 5 No Data Collected Evidence Depth of Knowledge. 10. The teacher helps students make connections to career and college preparedness and realworld experiences. 11. The teacher implements appropriate and varied strategies that meet all students' diverse learning needs. 12. The teacher conducts frequent formative assessments to check for understanding and inform instruction. 13. The teacher uses available technology to support instruction, engage students, and enhance learning. LEARNING 14. Students are engaged in challenging academic tasks. 15. Students articulate their thinking or reasoning verbally or in writing either individually, in pairs, or in groups. 16. Students use technology as a tool for learning and/or understanding. 17. Students assume responsibility for their own learning whether individually, in pairs, or in groups. [Please provide examples.] Page 81 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Standard III: Assessment and Effective Use of Data Inventory Date: Time in: District IRN: School: # Students: #Teachers: Class: Gen ED ELL Part of Lesson Observed: Total time: Subject: Grade Level: Building: MS HS #Assistants: Special ED Self Contained Beginning Middle Inventory Item ES Title I End Observer: 0 1 2 3 4 5 NDC FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS Evidence The teacher conducts frequent formative assessments to check for understanding and to inform instruction. The teacher uses Formative Instructional Practices (FIP) to enhance student learning. Student performance data, including formative assessment results, is displayed in classrooms, hallways, etc. SOUND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES Differentiated instruction in the classroom is demonstrated through remediation, enrichment, or grouping strategies. Standards-based instruction is demonstrated through the use of clear learning targets. ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY Working technology (e.g. smart boards, laptops, desktops, tablets, etc.) are available for student use. USE OF TECHNOLOGY Students are using technology as part of their classroom instruction. The teacher integrates the use of technology in instruction. Page 82 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Standard VI: Fiscal Inventory Date: Time in: Total time: Subject: District IRN: School: # Students: #Teachers: Class: ELL Special ED Self Contained Part of Lesson Observed: Beginning Middle Gen ED Building: Inventory Item Grade Level: ES MS HS #Assistants: 0 Title I End Observer: 1 2 3 4 5 NDC Evidence CLASSROOM RESOURCES 1. Safety items – i.e. clutter, MSDS sheets in science rooms, mold in rooms, water stains, and chemical storage issues 2. Technology (e.g. computers, laptops, tablets, calculators, whiteboards, etc.) are available for use in classroom instruction. 3. There is seating available for all students (e.g. desks and chairs). 4. Classroom are free of water leaks, exposed wires, broken glass, lightbulbs or equipment). 5. Classrooms are illuminated to provide lighting in all areas of the room for learning. Page 83 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Fiscal Inventory – General Building and Facilities Review Warm, Dry, Safe = • • • Warm - modern, functioning heating, well-insulated roofs, windows in good condition with secure locks, Dry - roofs, windows and building fabric in good condition, free from water penetration and damp Safe - modern electrics including rewiring where necessary, secure front doors with properly functioning panic bar mechanism Inventory Item 1. Hallways, Common areas 0 1 2 3 4 5 NDC Evidence 2. Kitchen – 3. Transportation – buses, maintenance area – 4. Maintenance shop and/or warehouse 5. Athletic areas – football field, baseball field, track, locker rooms, soccer fields, weight rooms, training facilities 6. Custodial work areas – (maintenance closet or custodial closets) 7. Work areas/boiler rooms or areas Page 84 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Building Observation Report Date(s): Time In: District: Time Out: Building: Reviewer: Leadership, Governance and Communication ITEM Six Standards Curriculum & Instruction Assessment/ Use of Data Human Resources & Professional Development 0 1 2 3 4 5 NDC General Description and Layout of Building Appearance of Grounds Building Entrance - Clean Classroom Groupings Meeting Spaces General Description of Hallway Space: (Displays of: ) Mission Statement Student Recognitions Student Performance Visible Directional Signage Family and Community Activities General Description of Library Spaces Environment Organization Shelved Items Leveled Grade Appropriate General Description of Special Space (Cafeteria, Gym, Music, Art): Office space Storage space Scheduled Spaces Maintenance Relationships to regular classrooms Student/Class Transitions Movement in hallways Monitoring of hallways Noise levels Obstacles Safety/Security Provisions Greetings Visitors and volunteers Storage issues Health and Safety Practices posted Playground (Elementary Schools ONLY) Appearance of Grounds Ratio of Students to Teachers Teacher Attentiveness to Students Student Support Fiscal Management Evidence Page 85 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 ITEM Cafeteria Appearance of Area Ratio of Students to Teachers Teacher Attentiveness to Students Noise Level Presence of External Stakeholders Parent Liaison Volunteer(s) (activities) Parents/Guardians Engagement with Students Interruptions to Instruction Announcements Fire Drill/Actual Incident (Please include details in “Additional Comments section) Calls for Teachers Calls for Students Fight/Security Issues (Please include details in “Additional Comments section) Additional Comments: 0 1 2 3 4 5 NDC Evidence Page 86 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed 2011 School Improvement Grant Diagnostic 2014-2019 Dayton Public Schools Contract with the Community 2017-2018 Dayton Public Schools Proposed Research Agenda 2017-2018 Research Action Plan 12.14.2017 2018 District Task Checklist Data 3-Year Professional Development Plan Academic Distress Commission Final Report Dayton 2015 Administrative District Wide FY17 & FY18 All Funds Box Total Administrative Staff Salary Schedule 2014.6.10 Amended Certificate American Government Pacing Guide American History Course of Study and Pacing Guides Annual Dayton Public Schools Teacher Survey Spring 2018 Appropriation Ledger April Issue Curriculum Corner 2017 Attendance Dayton Final Presentation Audit report Balanced Assessment System document Board of Education policies Building accounts Building Leadership Team 5-Step Process Building Leadership Team Agendas and Minutes Building Leadership Team Attendance and Discipline Data Review Building Leadership Team Communication Plan Template Cash position report Certificate of Available resources City of Learners information Comprehensive Continuous Improvement Plan and Reports Contracts for business meetings Corrective Action Plan Course credit verification report Course of Study replacement cycle Cupp Report Curriculum organizational chart Curriculum processes Data Analysis Form Dayton City Schools 2017-18 Special Education Profile Dayton Education Association Bargaining Unit Contract Dayton Grants Total Dayton Profile Report Dayton Public Schools 2017-18 Assessment Calendar Dayton Public Schools Academic Plan Dayton Public Schools Building Decision Framework Dayton Public Schools Cohort Agenda Sept 7, 2017 Page 87 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Dayton Public Schools Community Partners Dayton Public Schools District Improvement Plan Dayton Public Schools District Plan Task Analysis 1.1.1 to 2.1.9 Dayton Public Schools District Review Report 2015 – Ohio Department of Education Dayton Public Schools Employee Handbook Dayton Public Schools Employee Manual Dayton Public Schools Home Access Center Dayton Public Schools New Teacher Handbook Dayton Public Schools Parent Handbooks Dayton Public Schools Response to the Ohio Department of Education District Review, May 19, 2015 Dayton Public Schools Website Development of a High Value Employee Handbook District Academic Plans District Curriculum Team meeting agenda District Educational Technology Plan District Enrollment Counts District Improvement Plan and Performance Measures District Intervention manuals & forms District Leadership Suggested Evidence for District Leadership Team goals District Leadership Team Communication Plan Template District Leadership Team Goals 1 and 2 Adult Implementation and Student Performance District Leadership Team Meeting Agenda’s and Minutes District organizational chart Employee Exit Survey English Language Arts Course of Study and Pacing Guides - Elementary and Middle Schools English Language Arts Curriculum Documents Equitable Access to Excellent Educators Evaluation Brief – Parent Survey Pilot Spring 2016 Facilities and Operations master plan Faculty Handbook February Root Cause Implement Plan Feedback Support Schools Monitoring Rubric Fidelity Inventory School Wide PBIS Tiered Report FY17 Dayton Public Schools District Plan - Monitoring Tool – Goals1 & 2 Hanover Administrators Salary Schedule Benchmarking Feb. 2018 Hanover K-12 Climate Survey Draft Feb. 2018 Hanover Proposed Research Agenda for Dayton Public Schools, 2017-2018 Power Point Presentation Hanover Research Action Plan (December 2017 – April 2018) Hanover Research Summary and Overview High School English Language Arts Pacing Guide Home Access Center document Internal treasurer office items Job Descriptions Kindergarten Science Course of Study and Pacing Guides Lesson Plans and observation forms Lesson Plan Checklist – Program Document Page 88 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018 Literature Course of Study Local Report Card District and Schools Marzano Focused Teacher Evaluation Model Master Contract between The Dayton Education Association and The Dayton City School District Mathematics Pacing Guides and Course of Study and Pacing Guides - Elementary and Middle Schools Memorandum of Understanding for Outside Agency May 2018 Miami University Annual Dayton Public Schools Teacher Survey Spring 2018 Miami University Dayton Public Schools Parent Survey Pilot 2016 Miami University Discovery Center Evaluation Brief 2016 Questionnaire Data Miami University Teacher Questionnaire 2016 Middle School English Language Arts Speaking Language Course of Study - Curriculum & Instruction Monthly financial reports for Board of Education Non-payroll budget forms OCES Evaluation Ratings Ohio Improvement Process Communication Survey Review Ohio Principal Evaluation System Schedule Ohio Teachers Evaluation System Policy Operations and Maintenance Department newsletter Positive Behavioral Intervention Strategies, 2017 Principal Handbook Principal Informal Observation Form Principal Meeting Agendas Principal Pipeline September 2017 – February 2018 Principals Roll Out Nov 6, 2017 Professional Development Summer Brochure Purchase requisitions within board reports Purchasing policy manual Quarterly School Improvement Grant Building Leadership Team Meeting agenda and minutes Read 180 Intervention Reading Improvement Master Plan Report of instructional staff attendance Root cause Analysis Planning template Sample Progress Monitoring Input Screen School Finance Payment Report SIG Professional Development Principal Meeting Agenda SIG trainings Settlement Sheets Staff Handbooks Strategic Plan 2011-2015 Student Guided Functional Behavior assessment Summer Professional Development sign-in sheets Teacher Based Teams Teacher Based Team Training Documents and Meeting Forms Teacher Improvement Plan document Teacher Leader Teacher Based Team training 3.9.18 Teacher observation results Page 89 DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT REVIEW REPORT │ September 18, 2018