9.05.2015

DCSD Average ACT Scores: Looking Up

I am always pleased to note the accomplishments of our students. Whether it is through art and music talent, through achievements on the sports field, or through academic achievement, our students continue to improve every year in various areas.

Although our students are not defined by one test on one day, the state of Colorado requires the ACT test of all high school students. Unlike several other standardized tests such as PARCC, students take the ACT seriously. It has been viewed as a marker in high school achievement, not to mention used as a criterion in college admissions.

Here is a look at the 2010 ACT scores compared with the 2015 ACT scores. The comparison is not exact, as there is a school that tested in 2010 with no results in 2015 (eDCSD) and a few schools that tested in 2015 that did not test in 2010 (Legend High School, SkyView Academy, and the STEM charter school). 



Students at schools which were tested in both 2010 and 2015 represent 83.6% of 2015 scores that held steady or rose. Another 13.9% were not tested in 2010 and made a strong showing for 2015, including two charters that had scores above the district average. The remaining 2.4% of students whose scores declined represent our two alternative schools, who have strong leadership in place to help guide students through improvements. 

There are other bright spots. For example, HOPE Online, one of DCSD's charters, caters to special populations of students that are low-income, English language learners, or may otherwise face challenges. HOPE kids want to succeed despite these. They have pulled their ACT scores up by 1.6, a greater jump than any other school. This is an excellent indicator for HOPE Online.

DCSD parents, teachers, and staff have all supported our students, who have worked very hard to effect these improvements. I am very proud of them!  

5.13.2015

School-Based Budgeting

It is budget time again! DCSD is a rarity in terms of school districts in that it allows schools to have a great deal of autonomy in how they spend their budget dollars. Site-based budgeting gives local school communities a greater voice in what personnel they want to hire, what proportion of classroom teachers they want to have, and what programs they would like to emphasize.

Now that the Colorado General Assembly, or state legislature, has adjourned and school districts are receiving budget numbers, questions are beginning again about school-based budgets and how those allocations work. Using an actual elementary school budget from this current school year, I will walk you through the way the district allocates money to schools, and how a school might spend its budget on its own priorities.

It may be useful for you to consult the following infographics as you read. The information that follows is a narrative meant to accompany them.


Where do the dollar figures come from? 


Click for larger image.
The school begins with a worksheet and a base student-based budget pupil allocation (SBBPA). This amount is $3,722. This is based on a proportion of projected state funding. Although the legislature passes a budget every spring, this can change at any time due to unforeseen circumstances. For example, several years ago, the state rescinded $9M from DCSD toward the end of the year because its projections exceeded the actual revenues and it could not pay DCSD the full amount promised.

Every fall, enrollment is counted on October 1, or Count Day. Budgets are completed before this date, but the actual count is where schools reconcile their projections with their actual numbers and the final budgets are set. Our notional school has 74 kindergarten students and 472 students in grades 1-6. Although the SBBPA will be the same, local mill levy override dollars will be $30 additional per student in kindergarten, and $60 additional per student in grades 1-6.

The kindergarten total allocation is $277,648, and the total for grades 1-6 is $1,785,104. Together these numbers add up to $2,062,752.

This is not the only funding available to the school, however.  The district provides additional funding support in several forms. First, there are non-discretionary allocations depending on the school and its needs. Needs such as Gifted and Talented, Special Education, English Language, and Literacy are funded. These are non-discretionary because they are either required by law, like special education, or are otherwise a constrained expense.  Non-discretionary funds add up to $701,156 at our school.

Discretionary expenses are not necessarily positions or expenses that the school would want to do without, but rather are those that have a certain amount of flexibility. These include the principal, heath assistant, and the volunteer coordinator. These positions can have varying amounts of contract hours so that the dollar allocation for these is discretionary. Total discretionary funds at this school are $135,244.

Other discretionary allocations are based on specific needs such as the Student Success Act, which funds certain requirements laid out in state law, and highly impacted school funds, meant to alleviate issues caused by circumstances beyond a school’s control (e.g. small size). These funds add up to $52,300.

The sum of these different line items:

$2,062,752 [SBBPA Total]    
$701,156 [Non-Discretionary]
$135,244 [Discretionary]
$52,300 [Other Additional Discretionary]
------------------
$2,951,452 [Total]


How is the school choosing to spend its allocation?

Click for larger image.
In its budget worksheet, the school lays out its chosen expenditures. A single FTE accounts for 2,080 hours per year. Using this calculation, schools lay out personnel in terms of FTEs while giving each individual a line item. They will have 37 classroom teachers (31.95 FTE), 3 administrators and 1 administrative intern (3.047 FTE), and 16 classified staff such as office support and classroom aides (6.73 FTE). Some teachers and almost all support staff are part-time, enabling the school to hire more individuals than FTE and thus being able to meet its needs. Total FTE are 41.73.

Additional expenses include instructional supplies ($92,247; printing, textbooks, etc.) and support services ($5,000; phone costs, mileage, etc.). With these expenditures, the $2,951,452 is spent.

The school, however, has a few small additional funding sources at its disposal. Full-day kindergarten tuition proceeds and before/after school care fees add up to $221,301 that the school may keep and decide how to spend. This adds up to $405 per student in non-SBB dollars. The school chose to pay an additional 2 FTEs entirely from this money, as well as contributions to four more teacher salaries and one educational assistant with special training. The total is 3.12 FTE spread out among seven positions. Additionally, $7,890 dollars for supplies will be allocated from this pool.

The total amounts are as follows, district-funded and school-funded.

41.72 FTE + 3.12 FTE = 44.85 FTE Total
$2,951,452 + $221,301 = $3,172,753 Total

The dollar figure per FTE is $70,748. Per student, the dollar figure is $5,811.

From all tax revenue sources, both local and state-based, the 2014-15 funding is $6,764 per pupil, or the per pupil revenue figure (PPR). This means that the dollars per student, as a percentage of state PPR, is $5,811/$6,764, or 86%. Taking away the school-raised dollars, the dollars per student as a percentage of PPR—from district PPR sources—add up to $5,406/$6,764, or 80%.

This means at least eight of every ten dollars that comes to the district gets passed through to the schools. We believe that schools can make informed decisions about their individual needs based on input from their teachers, parents, and community. As the budget process continues over the course of the next month until final approval, I look forward to conversations with taxpayers about these important priorities.



9.24.2013

Modern Learners and the Student Perspective

On two recent occasions, I had the privilege of attending both the kickoff Student Advisory Group  meeting, and the Castle View High School Modern Learners evening panel discussion.

The Student Advisory Group (SAG) is an official committee of the Board of Education.  Several students from each high school work directly with the Superintendent and district administrators, creating an opportunity for the district and Board to hear directly from a focus group of students.  We ask them to provide us with feedback on what they think about their education, and to help foster communication between staff, the Board and students.  The space on the dais at Board of Education meetings designated "Student Voice" is primarily filled by SAG students.

District staff led a group discussion with SAG members to help launch the pilot program for the student satisfaction survey.  The district is cultivating teacher practitioners who continually adjust their instruction based upon feedback from their learners.  The survey will be an important mechanism for teachers.

Students have some very keen insights into what is satisfying to them as learners.  When asked to describe what a great teacher looks like, these were some of the things they had to say.

  • We will be more excited to learn if the teacher is excited to teach us.
  • Sometimes teachers think they are teaching us but they aren't; they need to make it simpler for us and spell it out.
  • We want teachers to take the time to talk to us. We don't want them make us feel dumb or like we are taking time away from what they are doing.
  • We like for things to be straightforward.  But at the same time, don't show us the easiest problem and then expect us to understand everything.
  • Sometimes when a teacher makes us want to learn, it doesn't have much to do with the class or subject; they make us want to come to class.
  • When teachers insult our intelligence, it's the worst.
In the past, I have heard some people express concerns that students can't possibly know how to determine what makes a good teacher.  They may scorn teachers who are perceived as "hard," or only grade teachers well whom they like--not teachers who are actually good.  Students dismissed this idea.  They are interested in teachers who will challenge and engage them, make their work relevant, and help them see the value in their class work.  For those who still want to scoff at the validity of student feedback, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did a formal study called the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project.  Their initial findings show that student perceptions are a remarkable predictor of academic achievement.  

DCSD's pilot student survey will take place in the spring.  Student volunteers were solicited to help DCSD staff, including teachers and the World-Class Education Department, develop the surveys. 

This leads me to the Modern Learners Symposium at Castle View High School (CVHS) last week.  CVHS brought a panel of nine educators to discuss the challenges for the future of American education in preparing students for the future.  

I was happy to see that the educator panel had views that were in line with what the students wanted for their educational experience.  Dr. John Lanning, for example, an educator at the University of Colorado at Denver, notes that engagement makes kids successful.  Dr. Tim Kubik, who has worked on numerous initiatives to increase student engagement, believes that students need meaningful things to work on, with real context and complexity, if they are to be engaged.  Michelle Baldwin, an educator at Anastasis Academy in Centennial, remarked that if students have more choice and voice in their own education, they'll be successful--it has to be about the learner, not the content.  

Every member of the panel had a particular perspective on how to move education into the future for our students.  All of our students in the SAG meeting had something to contribute to the discussion about student satisfaction and perspectives.  Although the two sessions were over ten days apart, many of the same themes were present.  Engaging students with meaningful learning experiences, and providing them with choices and a hand in their own futures, will make kids' education into a far more successful and satisfying experience.  I am so proud to be part of our district, where educators have moved beyond conversations and toward action in creating the future of American education.

4.09.2013

Learning lessons from student opinions on schedules


As the BOE liaison to the Student Advisory Group (SAG), an official committee of the Board, I love to hear what students think.  Students underwent a significant change this year at most high schools, switching to an eight-period day with more time spent in block scheduling.  At Chaparral High School, students were surveyed in December to determine their experiences and opinions on the schedule.  Principal Ron Peterson commissioned the survey to help inform Chaparral staff of possible tweaks and changes that could be made for next year.  The BOE was not involved in the survey timing or design; however, we are interested in its results as we look forward to next year.

Results Overview

The survey was conducted in a student’s English class to try to get maximum participation; 1548 students responded, roughly evenly split across all four grades.  The majority, 78%, is taking six (23%) or seven (55%) classes; first semester, 58% had one off period and 23% had two.  A large majority, 68%, said that they like the schedule this year.  Another 17% was undecided.  Finally, 15% say that they do not like it.

 These were some of the positive responses
students shared from the 1548 surveys returned.
Students were given an array of choices as to what they like about the new schedule.  They could choose multiple options, leading to a sum of over 100%.  The largest majority, 79%, indicated that it was because they don’t have the same classes every day.  Other popular answers included “I get a lot done with longer periods” (67%), “Less homework each night” (61%), and “Time to finish what we start” (58%).  Many said that the schedule is “not as bad as I thought it would be” (63%).

Opinions were also sought on things that students don’t like about the schedule.  The largest group (66%) said that they found it “hard to pay attention for that long.”  Another 53% said that they had too many quizzes or tests on the 8 period days.  None of the other answers garnered a majority, although numerous students (44%) opined that they felt “overwhelmed missing a block class because 1 period = 2 periods of work missed” and an additional 39% stated that they felt more homework was given in each class.

Students use their free periods for many different activities.  Again, given a list from which to choose, most students (75%) said that they used the free time for homework and to see teachers.  Studying was a choice of 68%.  Going to the testing make-up center is an option (38%), as is going to the library (43%). Some of these same students also seek balance by socializing with friends (57%) and leaving campus (50%).

What should we keep with the schedule?  An overwhelming 92% want Chaparral to keep its off periods.  Another 60% want to keep blocks at 4 periods per day.  Additional answers included “the current bell schedule" (40%), and "homeroom 2 times a week" (41%).

As for what we should change, students would like a longer lunch (56%) and longer homeroom time (48%).  Only 7% want to allow everyone to take 8 classes. 

Commentary

Obviously, the data set is only partially represented by the summary above.  However, overall, students like the new schedule for many reasons.  There are opportunities for improvement as Chaparral moves into next year.  The survey is a great learning experience for DCSD as a whole. 

Our administrators have indicated that the expanded schedule, with increased opportunities for students, is better for our high schools overall.  Next year, the administration projects that increased funding will allow all students to take as many classes as they want.  Our teachers have stepped up to teach more classes and help students achieve their academic goals.  Our principals and building staff have taken on increased workloads to give kids these choices.  We are truly fortunate to have such professionals in our district.

Since this is the first year that our high schools have changed to this schedule en masse, we can benefit from lessons learned.  Our students have given us many ideas for what we can do better.  Students tell me that they would like increased access to their teachers during homeroom or advisement and their off periods.  They also generally dislike the rushed feel of eight period days, due to the large increase in passing periods over the block days.  On the positive side, they have told me that they learn to manage their time well and feel prepared for the adjustment that they will face as they go to college.  They also believe they have a chance to sink their teeth into a subject on any given block day thanks to the additional time, and that now classes on eight-period days seem like they are just getting started when it is time to move on to the next class.

I am extremely proud of our district and our students for the way they have approached this new schedule.  I believe our administrators at the high school level can work with their respective student, teacher, and parent populations to come up with solutions and refinements that meet the needs of each individual school. 

3.08.2013

How to Get to Seven: The Rest of the Replacement Process


On Tuesday night, the Board interviewed thirteen people who have expressed interest in being the replacement for the District D vacancy.  Two people withdrew; the rest came to the Board room in 15-20 minute increments to discuss their backgrounds and vision for the school district as well as to answer questions from the Board.

The candidates consisted of a wide range of citizens from within District D boundaries.  I had a great time listening to them describe their interest in education and their responses to all of our questions. 

The Board convened in executive session following the meeting to learn of the statutory guidelines for the next steps.  No candidates were discussed in this session; statute doesn't permit this, and in any case the Board wants these discussions to be fully public.  The Board settled on having two additional special meetings to accomplish three objectives: 1) ensure all discussions of the candidates occurs in open session, for both transparency’s sake and for the benefit of the public; 2) to nominate finalists to give the Board time to follow up individually with candidates before the appointment process, and 3) to appoint the new Director prior to the statutory deadline of March 16th.

The first meeting will occur on Monday the 11th.  There is essentially one item on the agenda: to nominate finalists.  Board members may choose to participate by phone if they can’t attend in person.  The Board will nominate up to five finalists, with each person nominated requiring a second.  Because of this, there may be fewer than five.  Each Board member will have a chance to speak on behalf of any of the candidates after the nominations.

The second meeting will take place on Thursday the 14th.  The Board will have another chance to interview the finalists.  After that, a vote will take place that will formally fill the vacancy.  After that, the new Board member will be able to vote with the rest of us to elect a new Vice President.

I am looking forward to the final steps in this process.  We have a very high-caliber pool of candidates from which to choose.   I welcome input from any citizen regarding any of the candidates that were interviewed in Tuesday night.  

3.04.2013

Searching for a good board member: the latest

Here’s an update on the process to interview candidates for the vacant District D Board of Education seat.

Rather than having Board members try to agree on a few candidates to interview, President Carson has suggested that we interview every candidate to give everyone an opportunity to address the Board.  That way, every applicant can outline what he or she hopes to contribute to the Board.  The rest of the Board liked this idea.  Tomorrow evening, March 5, we will interview all of the candidates for 15 to 20 minutes, beginning at 4:30 pm.

All candidate interviews are open to the public, although each candidate will not be permitted to watch the others’ presentations.  Each will have a chance to distribute written materials.  The interviews will be conducted in the Board room at Wilcox.  After all the interviews are completed, the Board will discuss how we want to narrow the field down to a few finalists.

Here’s the schedule, past, present and future: 
  • Online application period closed: February 22nd
  • Application review ending: March 1st
  • First round of interviews 15 minutes each: March 5th
  • Second round of interviews: TBD
  • Final selection and appointment: March 14th
 Note that because of the statutory deadline, the Board needs to complete interviews within 60 days of former Director Gerken’s resignation, which is March 16th.  The regular meeting scheduled for March 19th would be too late, so the meeting that day will be moved to the 14th.


2.26.2013

In search of a good board member


With the resignation of Director Dan Gerken of Castle Pines, the Board is looking forward to filling his position in accordance with Colorado state statute, which states that the Board must fill his seat within 60 days of his resignation.  The last time a board member resigned was in 2010 with the resignation of Director Ryan Stuart, in district A.  He was replaced with Director Craig Richardson, who continues to hold this seat today.  The replacement process will be virtually the same for Director Gerken’s former seat.

The maps for the director districts can be found here.  Click on any district to be taken to a detailed map.  This feature has been improved since the redrawing of the Director districts in December!

Applicants who have been county residents for a year, live in District D, and are registered to vote were encouraged to apply. 

At the closing of the application period last Friday, we had received 15 names.  We are now in the process of narrowing the list to determine how many will be interviewed.  Board President John Carson has asked all of us board members to give feedback as to whom we’d like to interview.  I’m hoping to see 5 or 6 interviewees.  Interviews are scheduled to be held during the regular board meeting date and time, March 5, with a vote taken to fill the seat by March 14.  At that time, a vote will also be taken to fill the currently vacant board Vice President position.

Here is the list of applicants:
  • Christine Strang
  • Joan Brown (former education administrator)
  • George Teal
  • Michael Glowacki (former education administrator and teacher)
  • Aaron Johnson
  • Dan Coombe
  • Kevin Leung (ran against Dan Gerken in 2009)
  • Barb Wendell (worked as a paraprofessional in DCSD and the Colorado League of Charter Schools)
  • Herbert Rose
  • Dr. Carrie Mendoza (physician at Parker and Castle Rock hospitals)
  • Brant Phillips
  • Judi Reynolds (DAC recording secretary)
  • Steve Dovey
  • Randy Reed (former mayor of Castle Rock)
  • Charcie Russell (board member of Great Choice Douglas County)