Strategies for Improving Student Performance in a Time of Declining Resources Sue Gendron, Commissioner of Education Maine Department of Education Stefan Kohler, Chief Executive Officer International Center for Leadership in Education Saturday, January 24, 2009

$0.8 trillion - Medicare Part D Fiscal Debt $1.5 trillion - Future interest on new debt $1.6 trillion - Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac $0.5 trillion - Debt from other bailouts $0.75 trillion - Projected deficit for 2009 $4.9 trillion -Increase in national debt $0.1 trillion - Veterans entitlements $0.2 trillion - Rebuilding defense

How It Effects Us Cost of a family health insurance premium $12,680 $6, % Uninsured People Million + 19%

How It Effects Us Families in poverty 6.4 Million + 19% Real median household income $50,557 $50,233 -1%

Where the Money Went $1,642 Billion Corporate profits $980 Billion + 68%

Top 1% of Americans % 17.5% 16.1% 16.8% 19% 21.2% 22.1% % 13.8% 14.2% 14% 13.4% 12.8% 12.5% Bottom 50% Where the Money Went

Manufacturing Process

Efficient and Effective Framework High Student Performance High Cost Low Cost Low Student Performance CDCDABABCDCDABAB High Cost High Performance Low Cost High Performance Low Cost Low Performance High Cost Low Performance

11,000 students 28% minority 30% free/reduced lunch 10% with disabilities CEO: Bob Sommers

Low Student Performance High Student Performance LowCost High Cost C D A B Initiatives Customer Focus: Student Performance Changed Policy: Budget Allocation Innovation: Evaluation Process

Initiatives Customer Focus: Student Performance Changed Policy: Budget Allocation Innovation: Evaluation Process Butler Tech Decision Framework © Will it improve Staff satisfaction? Is it ethical? Decisions: What to do. How to deploy it. Will it improve customer satisfaction? Will it improve stakeholder satisfaction? Will it improve organization or student performance? Can we afford it?

Stage Gate Process

Initiatives Customer Focus: Student Performance Changed Policy: Budget Allocation Innovation: Evaluation Process The Board changed the financial policy to ensure budgets included coaching, mentoring and tools for teachers

Initiatives Max. 70% of budget = teacher salaries/benefits 30% had to be allocated to: Professional Development Student Supplies Technology Infrastructure Butler Techs history and their research showed that giving a teacher anything less than 30% allocation would mean they would fail.

Empowering teachers with: clarity of expected results significant teacher coaching Initiatives Customer Focus: Student Performance Changed Policy: Budget Allocation Innovation: Evaluation Process

Consistent classroom observations State-of-the-art data collection & reporting

Results Student Performance From 41st out of 47 CTE schools to #1 Ohios lowest cost/student College entrance up 45% 98% graduation rate 95% retention rate (9th to 10th grade) 96% attendance rate Low Student Performance High Student Performance LowCost High Cost C D A B

EE Framework: Brockton HS Low Student Performance High Student Performance LowCost High Cost C D A B

Brockton HS Special Ed Case Study The Situation ELA Failure Rate - 78% Math Failure Rate - 98% Special Ed Students taught in separate classrooms Teachers not certified in subject area Lower student expectations

The Challenge Based on substantially separate model Fiscal limitations Entrenched management philosophy Culture of low expectations Culture of Empires

The Action Plan A.School-wide literacy initiative B.Collection/analysis of student data C.Attendance at MSC D.Consulting from ICLE E.Teachers trained in co-teaching F.Special Ed students included in classrooms G.IEPs revised to include higher expectations H.Structured portfolios for students with IEPs I.Extended-day mentoring program

Sustainability Data constantly reviewed Student work included in portfolios Portfolios reviewed by administration Continued professional development on the challenges of co-teaching

Results ELA failure rate: 78% to 19% Math failure rate: 98% to 47% NO additional costs Low Student Performance High Student Performance LowCost High Cost C D A B

Strategies for Improving Student Performance in a Time of Declining Resources Sue Gendron Commissioner of Education Maine Department of Education Saturday, January 24, 2009

Funding Student Learning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Economic Stimulus Package

Using Student Learning as the Basis for Making Funding Decisions State District School

Clear Articulation of Vision, Mission and Goals Clear concise Measurable ( ) Constructed on data analysis Systemic agreement (K-12) Guide all budget decisions

Identification of Budget Priorities Comprehensive Data Analysis - Who is doing well? - What needs are not being met? - Are all students being challenged? - What practices are producing improved student performance? - Recommendations: what to stop, what to implement

Mapping the District Priorities K-12 Team Analysis –Identification of system needs –Identified strengths –Prioritization of needs Students Staff Policy implications –Costs identified

Identification of Financial Resources Local State Federal Grants

Budget Recommendations Transparent Focused and quantifiable Public perception/good value New decision making process for school board

Continuous Monitoring & Benchmarking of Performance Indicators and Expenditures -Clear goal(s) -Action strategies defined Measurable indicators Defined costs Timeline detailed Person responsible Ability to monitor daily, Adjusted accordingly

Efficiency and Effectiveness