Codntinue Coonversin to Full Time Security 3 Security Insourcing Analysis – Objective Goal: In a cost-neutral fashion, bring additional school security guards “in-house” and minimize reliance on a third party supplier for the identified campuses. Current Situation • Security pilot in place with 20 DPSCD security guards • Balance of approximately 71 security guards provided by Securitas • Current Securitas performance issues: • High turnover and vacancy rate • Unstable learning environment due to increased turnover • Inconsistent enforcement/reinforcement of DPSCD Policies Proposed Approach • Expand security pilot to include all DPSCD High Schools – 91 security guards • Expected benefits: • Significantly reduced turnover – less than 10%. No pilot school vacancies. • Consistent enforcement/reinforcement of DPSCD policies through stronger training and oversight • Builds stable learning environment through staff consistency and familiarity • Creates principal ownership of safety 4 2018 - 2019 Retention Data Current Security Pilot vs. Securitas • Pilot Security Program: As of September 30, 2018 all pilot school security officers had been placed. There has been no turnover and there are no vacancies. • Securitas: Of the 166 officers contracted with Securitas, 94 (57%) have exited during the course of the school year. 80% of the officers that have exited were hired as of September 30, 2018. 5 Feedback from Pilot and High Schools Survey Questions Pilot Schools Securitas I am satisfied with the security pilot program 90% 75% I am satisfied with my security officer 94% 80% I would like to remain/become a part of the security pilot program and hire my own officer 100% 85% I would like to keep my current security officer 89% 75% 5 Security Insourcing Analysis – Costs 6 The FY20 model indicates an approximate cost increase of 1.0% over current costs at the identified school campuses. Current Security Pilot DPSCD Wages (20 guards) DPSCD Uniforms Securitas Administration Securitas Training Community Use Total $783,740 DPSCD Wages (91 guards)*** $2,645,136 6,000 Securitas Wages (71 Guards) Overtime Hours Proposed Expanded Security Model 1,813,140 340,920 DPSCD Uniforms 36,000 DPSCD Administration 117,560 70,500 DPSCD Training 20,000 265,330 Overtime Hours 264,514 173,480 Community Use 199,490 $3,453,110 Insurance and Workers Comp Total 95,000 $3,377,700 Net Cost Impact*: $75,410 reduction in District costs for 91 guards *Does not include the value created from employment consistency and increased knowledge capital **Assumes all security guards will be 39 week employees; Supervisors (2) remain 52 week employees Security Insourcing Analysis – Schools Covered 7 Upon expanding the security guard pilot, a total of 39 DPSCD campuses will be covered by District security guards: FY 19 – 12 Campuses Bethune FY 20 – 27 Additional Campuses Covered Adult Ed. East Jerry L. White HS Cody HS Davis Aerospace/Golightly HS MLK HS Adult Ed. West Detroit Collegiate Prep Osborn HS E.I.D.C. Ben Carson HS Denby HS Pershing HS Henry Ford HS Cass Tech HS Detroit Lions Academy HS Randolph Career Tech. HS Keidan Special Ed. Legacy Academy DIA HS Renaissance HS Mumford HS Central HS DSA HS Southeastern HS Thurgood Marshall Charles Drew Transition Diane Banks Western HS A.L. Holmes CMA HS EEVP HS Westside Academy HS Bow Breithaupt Brewer Academy Charles Wright Turning Point @ Fleming Academy of Americas HS Changes to the Code of Coclnuct 2019-2020 9 Improvements Due Changes to the Code of Conduct • Improved districtwide uniformity in the implementation of discipline • Started the process of continuous improvement and best practice • Enhanced progressive discipline practices (i.e. restorative circles) • Reduced out of school suspensions, violent incidents, and improved attendance 9 10 Engagement Process to Inform Revisions • Over 200 stakeholders engaged over a series of feedback sessions this past year, including principals, deans, teachers, students, parents, and partners. • Board Member input at public meetings and individually communicated through the Superintendent. Continued feedback during Committee Meetings and Special Meeting. • Chat with the Supt sessions with school personnel and students • Issues and concerns raised during school visits 10 11 Suggested Changes to the Code of Conduct • The introduction of the “Expect Respect” focus to increase the level of expectations for student and personnel conduct; • Clearer expectations and implementation of a demerit system of behavior points that address repetitive, negative behavior with consequences (such as bullying); • Flexibility to remove students from the learning environment after fighting (first incident) and a referral to the hearing office after three fights for placement in an alternative setting; • Removal of “disorderly conduct” code, which served as a “catch all” infraction without specificity; • Addition of level three infraction to address extreme negative behavior not identified in the code while requiring district level approval with principal recommendation; • Permissible wearing of shorts within the dress code; • Office of Civil Rights contact on sexual related incidents; • Removal of younger students (K-2) from the classroom if behavior threatens the safety of the student, other students, or personnel; • Removal of detention for in school suspension due to inability to consistently implement the consequence in all schools. 11 End of Year Internal Assessment Results 4 DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUN T?v' D: STRICT K-8 Reading Results from Fall to Spring 31% 46% 58% 40% 37% 14% 39% 3 percent of K-8 students started the year within their grade level. 11% 16% 6% 3% Diagnostic Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level 30 percent of K-8 students ended the year within their grade level. Mid-Year Early On-Grade Level N = 28,853 students tested in both fall and spring, percent scores may not sum to 100 due to rounding rules One Grade Level Below End of Year Two or More Grade Levels Below Grades 3-8 End of Year Reading Placements The percentage of students ending the year within the grade band is a promising signal for M-STEP Literacy. 12% 13% Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level 52% Early On-Grade Level One Grade Level Below Two or More Grade Levels Below 36% Reading Results from Fall to Spring by Grade 1 K 2 3 5 4 6 7 8 3% 17% 26% 26% 33% 33% 40% 48% 54% 56% 61% 61% 68% 68% 69% 74% 18% 76% 79% 56% 93% 45% 37% 35% 72% 35% 28% 14% 49% 22% 42% 15% 15% 12% 26% 29% 30% 16% 21% 11% 22% 15% 4% 1% 3% F S F S F 2% 2% 1% S Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level 15% 14% F S F Early On-Grade Level N = 28,853 students tested in both fall and spring, percent scores may not sum to 100 due to rounding rules S 4% 9% F S One Grade Level Below 20% 12% 16% 12% 4% 6% 4% 5% 4% 5% F S F S F S Two or More Grade Levels Below iReady Reading Growth 54% % Median percent progress towards Typical Growth The median child in our district made a year’s worth of growth, and then some, in ELA. K-8 students made at least typical growth (i.e., one year of growth) for reading this year. 26% K-8 students met their stretch growth target, (i.e., gap closing growth toward grade level proficiency) for reading this year. Percent of Students Making Reading Growth by Grade Typical Growth K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 51% 41% 46% 50% 55% 55% 57% 59% 61% 28% 19% 22% 21% 24% 24% 27% 29% 30% One Year of Growth Stretch Growth Gap Closing Growth Typical Growth by Fall Placement Fall Placement Mid On-Grade or Above Early On-Grade 1 Grade Below 2 Grades Below 3+ Grades Below Statistic K 1 Median Percent of Typical Reading Growth Achieved 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Median Percent Count Typical Growth 86% 31 43 92% 75 37 100% 108 22 153% 89 17 133% 89 12 164% 52 7 200% 92 4 225% 93 4 213% 82 4 Median Percent Count Typical Growth 82% 228 44 91% 79 47 97% 184 29 105% 408 22 118% 160 17 177% 132 13 167% 121 9 192% 188 6 425% 205 4 Median Percent Count 110% 3,275 84% 2,776 108% 1,338 123% 819 115% 1,134 125% 553 183% 403 220% 300 244% 307 Typical Growth 49 26 20 16 12 10 9 103% 1,293 139% 610 115% 1,086 136% 490 200% 312 233% 191 33 23 20 14 12 12 Median Percent Count 81% 963 114% 1,450 121% 1,416 136% 1,998 141% 2,117 139% 2,066 Typical Growth 36 28 26 19 17 18 49 Median Percent Count 98% 849 Typical Growth 54 39 80% 2,184 44 Stretch Growth by Fall Placement Fall Placement Median Percent of Stretch Reading Growth Achieved Statistic K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Median Percent Count Stretch Growth 69% 31 54 77% 75 44 81% 108 27 124% 89 21 80% 89 20 64% 52 18 53% 92 15 64% 93 14 65% 82 13 Median Percent Count Stretch Growth 55% 228 65 77% 79 56 65% 184 43 59% 408 39 74% 160 27 92% 132 25 60% 121 25 50% 188 23 77% 205 22 Median Percent Count 81% 3,275 61% 2,776 79% 1,338 80% 819 64% 1,134 67% 553 85% 403 88% 300 88% 307 Stretch Growth 67 67 53 40 36 30 26 25 25 2 Grades Below Median Percent Count 55% 849 43% 2,184 54% 1,293 64% 610 49% 1,086 50% 490 65% 312 78% 191 Stretch Growth 96 81 63 50 47 38 37 36 3+ Grades Below Median Percent Count 37% 963 52% 1,450 51% 1,416 51% 1,998 48% 2,117 50% 2,066 Stretch Growth 79 62 61 51 50 50 Mid On-Grade or Above Early On-Grade 1 Grade Below Mathematics Results from Fall to Spring 37% 42% 56% 32% 47% 35% 15% 3 percent of K-8 students started the year within their grade level. 16% 8% 6% 30 percent of K-8 students ended the year within their grade level. 4% Diagnostic Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level Mid-Year Early On-Grade Level N = 29,588 students tested in both fall and spring, percent scores may not sum to 100 due to rounding rules One Grade Level Below End of Year Two or More Grade Levels Below Grades 3-8 End of Year Math Placements The percentage of students ending the year within the grade band is a promising signal for M-STEP Mathematics. 14% 9% 42% Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level Early On-Grade Level One Grade Level Below Two or More Grade Levels Below 34% Mathematics Results from Fall to Spring by Grade 1 K 2 3 5 4 6 7 8 4% 20% 25% 29% 38% 57% 38% 57% 59% 62% 58% 63% 64% 63% 77% 92% 34% 80% 79% 80% 43% 24% 76% 41% 16% 12% 24% 35% 14% 23% 23% 33% 37% 10% 21% 5% 2% 7% 17% 12% 15% 14% 17% 17% 11% 14% 11% 11% 13% 8% 10% 11% 6% 12% 7% 12% S F S F S 5% 11% 4% 8% 4% F S F S F 1% F S F S F S Mid-, On- or Above Grade Level F S Early On-Grade Level N = 28,853 students tested in both fall and spring, percent scores may not sum to 100 due to rounding rules One Grade Level Below Two or More Grade Levels Below iReady Math Growth 58% % Median percent progress towards Typical Growth The median child in our district made a year’s worth of growth, and then some, in Math. K-8 students made at least typical growth (i.e., one year of growth) for math this year. 29% K-8 students met their stretch growth target, (i.e., gap closing growth toward grade level proficiency) for math this year. Percent of Students Making Math Growth by Grade Typical Growth K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 62% 51% 48% 51% 53% 56% 60% 59% 57% 48% 30% 22% 23% 23% 22% 24% 27% 27% One Year of Growth Stretch Growth Gap Closing Growth Typical Growth by Fall Placement Fall Placement Mid On-Grade or Above Early On-Grade 1 Grade Below 2 Grades Below 3+ Grades Below Median Percent of Typical Math Growth Achieved Statistic K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Median Percent Count Typical Growth 81% 76 21 138% 17 21 94% 18 18 119% 15 21 121% 35 19 93% 29 14 123% 17 13 155% 13 11 122% 23 9 Median Percent Count Typical Growth 108% 123 24 81% 46 26 86% 28 22 108% 77 25 102% 118 23 89% 125 18 146% 123 13 133% 121 12 167% 115 9 Median Percent Count 128% 3,232 100% 2,504 104% 1,542 108% 1,027 109% 934 122% 818 121% 667 125% 589 178% 457 Typical Growth 32 29 26 26 23 18 14 12 9 Median Percent Count 114% 1,144 97% 2,195 104% 1,557 109% 1,012 117% 725 131% 617 131% 525 120% 441 Typical Growth 36 29 27 23 18 14 13 10 Median Percent Count 97% 890 108% 1,339 120% 1,535 133% 1,716 138% 1,797 133% 1,812 Typical Growth 30 24 20 15 13 12 Stretch Growth by Fall Placement Fall Placement Mid On-Grade or Above Early On-Grade 1 Grade Below 2 Grades Below 3+ Grades Below Median Percent of Stretch Math Growth Achieved Statistic K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Median Percent Count Stretch Growth 49% 76 35 91% 17 32 55% 18 31 83% 15 30 96% 35 24 65% 29 20 80% 17 20 85% 13 20 58% 23 19 Median Percent Count Stretch Growth 68% 123 38 58% 46 36 54% 28 35 79% 77 34 71% 118 33 55% 125 29 76% 123 25 73% 121 22 71% 115 21 Median Percent Count 105% 3,232 78% 2,504 75% 1,542 80% 1,027 74% 934 71% 818 65% 667 65% 589 73% 457 Stretch Growth 39 37 36 35 34 31 26 23 22 Median Percent Count 72% 1,144 58% 2,195 65% 1,557 61% 1,012 60% 725 63% 617 68% 525 52% 441 Stretch Growth 57 48 43 41 35 30 25 23 Median Percent Count 53% 890 55% 1,339 59% 1,535 57% 1,716 55% 1,797 52% 1,812 Stretch Growth 55 47 41 35 33 31