GROTON-DUNSTABLE District Data Presentation FLASHBACK Nov 29, 2017 Presented by: Dr. Katie Novak

A Short History First year that MCAS data is publically available for all districts which allows us to make state comparisons. Highest MCAS achievement on record for both proficiency and relative ranking. 2010-2011 School Year significant cuts were made in GD which correlated to significant decreases in achievement. Lowest MCAS achievement on record. 2017: Next generation MCAS scores released. 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

The 2010-2011 Cuts Academic Professional Staffing Special Education Social Emotional Curriculum Leadership Professional Dev’l 3.0 MS ($180,000) 1.0 English ($45,372) 1.0 Social Studies ($49,236) 2.0 World language ($91,945) 2.0 health and physical education ($107,057) 1.0 fine arts ($52,436) 1.0 accounting, economics ($71,069) .83 music ($45,376) =$642,491 3.5 special education teachers ($181,949) 1.0 social worker ($63,412) .5 Drug and alcohol counselor ($24,973) 1.9 guidance ($95,000) =$363,334 4.65 Curriculum leaders ($204,000) Curriculum professional development ($49,355) PLC consultant for curriculum leadership ($5000) NECC consultant ($46,000) Curriculum supplies ($159,532) =$463,887 In reviewing district minutes from the Admin Council meetings in 2010-2011 (on February 25, 2010), there was an attached file titled, “FY11 Reductions Agreed To.” The information above is from that document.

State of the District: Math In spring 2010, before any cuts, we had relative ranking of 26/350 (93rd percentile). After those cuts and adoption of Common Core, the district’s spring 2013 scores dropped us to a relative ranking of 90/350 (75th percentile). On the spring 2017 MCAS, our scores again placed us at a relative ranking, 40/350 (89th percentile). 2010 2013 2017 The reason I used 2010 for a comparison year was because significant cuts affected the district in the 2010-2011 academic year. Curriculum leadership, curriculum supplies, world language, etc… were cut. Also, when examining available data on MCAS, the earliest we can run state reports was 2008. 2010 scores were as high as they ever got. The scores exceeded relative rankings in both 2008 and 2009. In 2013, after two years of little to no curriculum leadership and the adoption of the Common Core, scores were at an all time low. You will see that in math, we have climbed back to scores similar to 2010 through the adoption of Eureka, strong Tier I instruction and strong curriculum leadership.

State of the District: ELA In 2010, before any cuts, GD had a relative ranking of 53/350 (85th percentile). After those cuts and the adoption of the Common Core, the district’s spring 2013 relative ranking dropped to 98/350 (72nd percentile). In spring 2017, our scores in ELA, when considering students who meet or exceed standards, gave us a relative ranking of 83/350 (77th percentile). The reason I used 2010 for a comparison year was because significant cuts affected the district in the 2010-2011 academic year. Curriculum leadership, reading specialists, elementary world language, math intervention, etc… were cut. Also, when examining available data on MCAS, the earliest we can run state reports was 2008. 2010 scores were as high as they ever got. The scores exceeded relative rankings in both 2008 and 2009. In 2013, after two years of little to no curriculum leadership and the adoption of the Common Core, scores were at an all time low and we continue to be stagnant. Although we have hired back reading interventionists and strong curriculum leadership, we have not adopted an ELA program and in MS, teachers are creating and supplementing curriculum. We are currently exploring options for curriculum exploration, piloting and adoption. Since 2013, our scores have been flat. We have improved our relative ranking, but overall, we are still tied with the 17th highest scores in the state. Variables that may have affected these scores are the lack of an ELA program and the lack of curriculum leadership in ELA for many years. 2010 2013 2017

As you can see, in 2013, after the cuts to curriculum and leadership, we saw a significant decline in scores. Although we are nearing all-time high levels in math, we are continuing to see slow to stagnant growth in ELA with declines when looking at students with disabilities in ELA (see next slide).

For example, in 2010, our students with disabilities (the blue line) scores 12 points higher than the state average for students with disabilities. In 2013, they fell to 10 points above the state average for students with disabilities. In 2017, the relative delta continued to declined and on the Next-Generation MCAS, they scored only 4 points above the state average for students with disabilities.

Conclusion We need to continue focusing on subgroups and consider both instructional strategies and curriculum that meets the needs of all learners to improve achievement. We need to continue to explore cost-effective ways to provide more curriculum leadership and embedded professional development. ELA scores continue to be an area of concern so we will be exploring standards-based curriculum programs in reading, writing, and phonics and more intensive, specialized Tier II and Tier III support. When we invest in high quality curriculum leadership and curriculum materials, we see very strong results and that is where we need to focus our investments.

Making Connections: Our Journey to Equity Equity Audit District Needs Assessment, 14-15 District Vision 15-16 District Strategy Fall 16 Integrated comprehensive systems (ICS) August 2017 Focus on MTSS, social emotional learning, PBIS, and UDL Improved professional development John Hattie Visible Learning Focus on Inclusive Practice

District Vision

Integrated Comprehensive Systems for Equity Cornerstone 1- Focus on Equity Step 1 - History of Marginalization/Current Model Step 2 - Deficit to Assets-Based Thinking Step 3 - Begins With Us: Identity Development for Systems Change Step 4 - Understand Equity Research Step 5 - Equity Non-Negotiables Step 6 - Equity Audit to Drive Change Cornerstone 2- Align Staff & Students Step 7. Align school/district teams with Equity Non-Negotiables Step 8. Re-align staff and students to eliminate inequities Step 9. Re-align district office to eliminate inequities Cornerstone 4 – Leverage Policy and Funding Step 12. Transform Roles and Responsibilities Step 13. Leverage Funding to Eliminate Inequities Step 14. Align Policy and Procedures to Eliminate Inequities Cornerstone 3 – Transform Teaching and Learning Step 10. Co-Plan to Co-Serve Step 11. Identity Relevant Teaching & Learning for All Learners Engage & Develop Community

Aligning MTSS to Inclusive Practices

The Equity Audit To align with best practices and the Coordinated Program Review findings, we completed an institutional equity audit to ensure that all students, regardless of race, color, sex, gender identity, religion, national origin, limited English proficiency, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status, have equal access to all programs, including academics, athletics and other extracurricular activities.

The Big Six How do these big six relate to the importance of a focus on equity for all students?

Next Steps We shared the equity audit with our School Leadership Team (SLT), the PD committee, MTSS Committee, Elementary Curriculum Committee and at the HS staff and completed a root cause analysis. We will continue to verify root causes and align back to research on best practice before sharing our data with the school community and incorporating findings into district improvement plans. We will continue to focus on our district vision as we increase the outcomes of all students.