support for the whole child - boarddocs · 2019-05-30 · •whole child case study schools view...

1

SUPPORT FOR THE

WHOLE CHILD

Board of Education Oct. 17, 2016 Work Session

2

DENVER PLANTHE

2020

A Foundation for Success in

School

GOAL #2 GOAL #3

Ready for College and

Career

GOAL #1

Great Schools in Every

Neighborhood

GOAL #4

Support for the Whole Child

GOAL #5

Close the Opportunity

Gap

33

SUPPORT FOR THE WHOLE CHILD

In Denver Public Schools, we are committed to providing equitable and inclusive environments where we ensure:

Every Child

Succeeds

Students are

Challenged academically and

prepared for success for college

and career

Students are

Engaged in

learning and connected to community

Students are

Supported by

qualified, caring adults

Students are in environments that are physically and

emotionally Safe

Students learn about and practice a

Healthy lifestyle

Students are

Socially and Emotionally Intelligent

Transforming the Student Experience In DPS

44

MEASURING WHOLE CHILD OUTCOMESNew ways to understand our students

• DPS is leading the nation in focusing this level of effort and attention around Whole Child supports because we know – and research shows – it will not only improve academic outcomes, but is critical to achieving our vision that Every Child Succeeds.

• In 2015-16, we piloted new measures of Whole Child support for each of the six components.

• Whole Child survey items were included in the Student Satisfaction Survey in spring 2016. Additional items will be added to some components in 2017.

5

KEY OUTCOMES• Confirmation that the link between Whole Child

factors and success in school is strong – students who reported strong Whole Child outcomes were more likely to meet academic expectations

• Identification of schools with particularly strong Whole Child outcomes so that we can emulate their practices in other schools – schools with particularly strong outcomes for African-American, Latino and low-income students worked to intentionally set a school culture that prioritizes and develops strong individual relationships with students

• Highlighting critical areas for us to focus our supports – including bullying, chronic absenteeism and out-of-school suspension disparities

• Support more meaningful inclusion of Whole Child strategies in school planning – matching improvement strategies with Whole Child data

66

CRITICAL AREAS TO FOCUS SUPPORTSBullying, chronic absenteeism and discipline disparities

• Bullying – Thousand of DPS students report experiencing bullying:• Among DPS middle school students, 46% (roughly 7,000) report having

experienced physical bullying at school, and 52% reported they perceived bullying in school being related to an individual’s sexual orientation.

• Among DPS high school students, 21% reported having experienced physical bullying in school, and 33% perceived bullying in school being related to an individual’s sexual orientation.

• Among DPS elementary school students, 43% agreed that students were often bullied at school.

• Chronic Absenteeism – Only 13% of schools reached attendance benchmarks among all race and ethnic subgroups.

These are defined in alignment with the School Performance Framework as:

• 50% of students having an attendance rate of 95% or more in elementary and middle school

• 45% of students having an attendance rate of 93% or more in high school

• Out-of-school Suspension Disparities – Out-of-school suspensions disproportionalities vary by network, but only 24% of schools successfully eliminated significant gaps in out-of-school suspension rates among race and ethnic subgroups

7

CASE STUDIES

Doull Elementary, West Leadership Academy,

Respect Academy and Denver Center for 21st Century Learningwere selected for case studies based on

favorable data on the Student Satisfaction Survey Whole Child data for

African-American, Latino and low-income students.

88

FINDINGS FROM CASE STUDIES

• Students at Whole Child case study schools had varying levels of support from their families based on stressors at home.

• Whole Child case study schools view Whole Child and students first as absolute priorities in how they operate day-to-day.

• Schools with strong Student Satisfaction Survey Whole Child data have worked to intentionally set a school culture that prioritizes supporting the Whole Child.

• Strong individual relationships form a basis for Whole Child outlier school success.

99

STRONG WHOLE CHILD OUTCOMESPrincipal’s Perspective

Principal Jodie CarriganDoull Elementary

1010

WHOLE CHILD ACTION PLANOverview

1. Focus on eliminating the racial disparities we see with African-American students related to student discipline

2. Focus on eliminating the use of Out of School Suspension for students in Early Childhood Education (ECE)

3. Assistance and roll-out of an ECE-21 scope and sequence for Social Emotional Learning

4. Development of deeper systems and supports for Whole Child alignment in Unified Improvement Plans (UIPs) and all school planning processes with an emphasis on use of school-level performance metrics data

5. Focus on deep inclusion of parent and student voice in Whole Child efforts centrally and in schools

6. Continued standard setting of necessary and appropriate level of student rating of Whole Child support

1111

FOR DISCUSSIONBuilding towards a final Denver Plan Whole Child goal

As we anticipate sharing a proposed Denver Plan 2020 goal with you soon, we would like to have a dialogue tonight about what success in Support for the Whole Child looks like from a range of perspectives.

Discussion Participants:

• Jodie Carrigan, Principal, Doull Elementary

• Tanya Carter, Instructional Superintendent, Elementary Network 6

• Rob Jakubowski, Director of District Performance Management, AR&E

• Eldridge Greer, Associate Chief, Student Equity & Opportunity

• Suzanne Morris-Sherer, Instructional Superintendent, High School Network 4

• Katherine Plog Martinez, Executive Director, Whole Child Supports

• Grant Varveris, Principal, University Park Elementary

12

APPENDICES

1313

Measuring the Whole Child: Tool OverviewThe Whole Child Survey offers new ways to understand our students!

Whole Child Component

Elementary Response Options: Agree, Disagree

SecondaryResponse Options: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

# of items

Sample item# of

itemsSample item

Challenged 4If I already know something, the teacher will give me something new to do.

11I understand what I need to do to learn and make progress in most of my classes.

Engaged 7 I like going to school most days. 5 I enjoy going to school.

Supported 5There is an adult at my school I can go to when I am worried or scared or have a problem.

12Most of the adults who work at the school treat me with respect.

Safe 6I feel safe and not scared when I am in school.

8I feel safe in school when adults are not around.

Healthy 3In the past month I have gotten sick a lot.

4I have difficulty participating in some normal activities because of my health.

Socially & Emotionally Intelligent

4 I often break things when mad. 2 I often break things when angry.

Whole Child survey items were included in the Student Satisfaction Survey in spring 2016. Additional items will be added to some components in 2017.

1414

Students with high Whole Child outcomes are more likely to meet expectations in math and ELA.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ma

th P

rofi

cie

nc

y

Elementary Grades

Mat

h P

rofi

cien

cy

Middle School Grades High School Grades

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Note: Correlation does not imply causation.

Note: High school data is for 9th grade CMAS results only.Note: Demographic differences between students in the highest and lowest quarter of Whole Child outcomes are small.

Darker circles are students in the top 25% of Whole Child Survey results.Lighter circles are students in the bottom 25% of Whole Child survey results.

1515

High School GradesMiddle School Grades

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ELA

Pro

fic

ien

cy

Elementary Grades

ELA

Pro

fici

ency

Students with high Whole Child outcomes are more likely to meet expectations in math and ELA.

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Note: Correlation does not imply causation.

Note: High school data is for 9th grade CMAS results only.Note: Demographic differences between students in the highest and lowest quarter of Whole Child outcomes are small.


1616

Gaps between students of color* and White students are much smaller for Whole Child outcomes than academic outcomes.

Students of Color White Students*Students of color is all non-white students: Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, in addition to Black and Latina/o.

Proficiency Lower Higher

1717

OSS rates have seen substantial decreases over the past 10-years.

21%

6.7%

8%

1.0%

31%

7.4%

3.0%

15%

3.5%4.5%

9%

1.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Ou

t o

f Sc

ho

ol S

usp

en

sio

n R

ate

s

Out of School Suspension RatesUnique Incidents

*The 2015-2016 data has not been submitted via the annual SDA submission. This data is based on the most severe resolution, and is subject to change.

1818

3%

14%

8%

0%

2%2%

4%

13%

10%

1%

8%

5%

2% 2%

4%

6%

2%

7%

5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

ES MS HS

Ou

t-o

f-S

ch

oo

l S

usp

en

sio

n

Schools use out-of-school suspensions at different rates for different subgroups, and schools suspend black students at the highest rate in nearly every grade.

Includes 2015-16 attendance for all students in all networks.

OSS rates are highest in the middle grades for almost all subgroups.

Asian

White

Two or More Races

Hawaiian/PacificIslander

Black

Hispanic

Native American

Elementary Middle School High School

School OSS rates for black students remain high, despite discipline reform efforts.

1919

In 2015-16, only 26% of schools had OSS rates of less than 3% for all subgroups.

Network % of schools meeting benchmark for all subgroups

Elem 1 50%

Elem 4 50%

Elem 2 40%

Elem 5 38%

High School 4 - WDN 38%

Charter 32%

Elem 6 30%

Middle School 2 29%

High School 25%

High School 3 25%

iZone Network 25%

Elem 3 21%

Middle School 1 14%

Intensive Pathway 2 8%

High School 2 - FNE 0%


2020

Disproportionalities between White students and Students of Color vary by network.

Whole Child 2016-17 process metric% of schools that successfully

eliminate significant disproportionalities in out-of-school suspension rates among subgroups

24% of schools met this benchmark in 2015-16.

Network

% of Schools Passing

Benchmark

Elem 4 38%


Elem 5 31%

Elem 2 30%

High School 25%

High School 3 25%


Elem 1 22%

Elem 3 21%

Charter 19%


Middle School 1 17%

Elem 6 10%


iZone Network 0%

Middle School 2 0%

OSS disproportionality is calculated by comparing the percent of White Students versus the percent of Students of Color who receive out-of-school suspensions.

2121

Half as many secondary students with high Whole Child survey outcomes experienced out-of-school suspensions.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Ou

t-o

f-S

ch

oo

l S

usp

en

sio

n

Elementary Grades Middle School Grades High School Grades

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Note: Small observed differences at the elementary level may be due in part to the lower reliability of the elementary whole child scales. Note: Correlation does not imply causation.


2222

Attendance, a marker of student engagement, varies significantly among students by subgroups.

ELEMENTARYChronic

absenteeism rate*

Averageattendance

rate

Native American (N=265)

34% 91%

Asian (N=1,414) 13% 95%

Black (N=5,864) 23% 92%

Hispanic (N=24,204) 20% 93%

White (11,467) 9% 95%

Hawaiian/PacificIslander (N=101)

36% 91%

Two or More Races (N=1,653)

16% 94%

SWD (N=1,123) 26% 92%

FRL (N=30,908) 22% 93%

Non-FRL (N=14,060) 8% 94%

Overall 17% 93%

*Chronic absenteeism is defined as less than 90% attendance (missing 17 or more days of school).

Note. Includes 2015-16 attendance for all students in all networks.

SECONDARYChronic

absenteeism rate*

Averageattendance

rate

Native American (N=345)

60% 81%

Asian (N=1,427) 17% 94%

Black (N=6,612) 40% 88%

Hispanic (N=25,785) 39% 87%

White (8,538) 23% 92%

Hawaiian/PacificIslander (N=100)

47% 89%

Two or More Races (N=1,463)

33% 89%

SWD (N=2,449) 45% 86%

FRL (N=31,271) 40% 86%

Non-FRL (N=12,999) 24% 88%

Overall 35% 88%

Students who are

Native American,

Black, Hispanic,

Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander, SPED or

FRL have the

highest rates of

chronic

absenteeism, and

also the lowest

average attendance

rates.

There are only

small differences in

attendance

between ELLs and

Non-ELLs, with ELLs

having higher

average attendance

and lower chronic

absenteeism in

elementary and

secondary

compared to Non-

ELLs.

2323

Few schools are currently meeting attendance benchmarks for all race/ethnicity subgroups.

Attendance benchmarks are defined, in alignment with the 2017 SPF, as:

• ES and MS: 50% of students at 95% or higher

• HS: 45% students at 93% or higher

Whole Child 2016-17 process metric% of schools reaching attendance benchmarks among all subgroups

13% of schools met this benchmark in 2015-16.

Note. The SPF does not require meeting the benchmark for all subgroups.

Network % of Schools

High School 3 38%

Intensive Pathway 23%

Middle School 2 20%

Charter 18%

Elem 1 18%

Elem 5 18%


High School 11%


Elem 3 7%


Elem 4 6%

Elem 2 5%

Elem 6 0%

iZone Network 0%

Middle School 1 0%

2424

Students with high Whole Child survey outcomes experienced less chronic absenteeism.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Ch

ron

ic A

bse

nte

eis

m

Elementary Grades Middle School Grades High School Grades

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Ch

alle

nge

d

Enga

ged

Sup

po

rted

Safe

Hea

lth

y

SEI

Note: Small observed differences at the elementary level may be due in part to the lower reliability of the elementary whole child scales. Note: Correlation does not imply causation.

Note. Chronic absenteeism is defined as less than 90% attendance.


2525

Thousands of DPS students report experiencing bullying.

Roughly 7,000 middle school students experienced physical bullying at school.

46%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Middle (N=15343) High (N=14912)

This school year, how many times on school property have you been pushed, shoved,

slapped, hit or kicked by someone who wasn't just kidding around?

Percent of students that experience physical bullying at some level.

52%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Middle (N=15318) High (N=14906)

This school year, how often have students been bullied because someone thought they were gay,

lesbian, bisexual, or transgender?Percent of students that perceived bullying was due to an

individual’s sexual orientation.

Nearly 13,000 secondary students perceived bullying due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

Note. 43% of elementary school students agreed that students were often bullied at school

26

CASE STUDIES

Doull Elementary, Math & Science Leadership Academy,

West Leadership Academy, Respect Academy and

Denver Center for 21st Century Learningwere selected for case studies based on

favorable Whole Child outcomes for African-American, Latino and

low-income students.

2727

FINDINGS FROM CASE STUDIES

• Schools with positive outcomes serve students who are not necessarily well-supported at home.

• Had an impact in spite of their students’ challenges.

• Worked intentionally to connect with parents through a variety of approaches; however, parent engagement proved challenging.

• Whole Child case study schools view Whole Child and students first as absolute priorities in how they operate day-to-day.

• Case study schools viewed supporting the Whole Child as the foundation for student learning and student success.

• While schools did not necessarily refer to the “Whole Child” initiative, they did incorporate Whole Child thinking into ongoing conversations.

• While Whole Child was not necessarily a formal part of planning, Whole Child thinking was the basis for determining the school’s use of time, resources and budget.

2828

FINDINGS FROM CASE STUDIES (Con’t.)

• Schools with positive outcomes have worked to intentionally set a school culture that prioritizes supporting the Whole Child.

• Strong leadership sets the tone to establish a culture that supports students and teachers.

• Staff selections and the overall staffing models support school culture.

• A perspective of teachers and staff as “whole people” supports overall school culture.

• Strong individual relationships form a basis for Whole Child outlier school success.

• Teachers and leaders acknowledge the individuality of students through practices like greeting students at the door and through creative outlets for student interests.

• Teachers and leaders understand students’ passions and home challenges.

• Student-teacher relationships form the basis for discipline prevention.

29

SCHOOL PLANNING AND UNIFIED IMPROVEMENT

PLANSWe are developing new supports for

schools in considering the integration of Whole Child in school planning.

3030

Whole Child in Unified Improvement Plans (UIPs): Background and Analysis

Background

UIPs (completed every fall) include a data narrative section and an action plans section (major improvement strategies and action steps).

In 2015-16, DPS schools were encouraged to consider Whole Child support in their UIPs, but limited guidance was provided (this issue was addressed with additional guidance in summer 2016; and is required for 2016-17).

UIP Content Analysis

The following analysis of 2015-16 UIPs provides a baseline for the consideration of Whole Child supports in UIPs, and facilitates targeting additional supports as schools begin writing their 2016-17 UIPs.

This analysis examined the presence of Whole Child keywords in the data narrativeand action plans sections. All schools were part of the analysis.

As a first step toward considering quality inclusion of Whole Child supports, UIPs were flagged if they contained the same keyword in both sections.

Whole Child 2016-17 process metric% of schools documenting Whole Child strategies in UIPs,

with a shift to the % of schools demonstrating evidence of quality implementation

3131

29% of 2015-16 UIPs did not included any Whole Child keywords, and engagement with Whole Child supports was often minimal, when included.

Keyword Percentage of UIPs

Parent/family involvement 62.9%

Culture, climate 54.0%

Behavior (PBIS) 45.0%

Attendance 41.1%

Engage, engagement, engaged 40.1%

College 33.2%

Supported, support 32.7%

Community (Surrounding) 25.7%

Partner 20.3%

Community (School) 19.8%

Social and Emotional 18.8%

Discipline 15.8%

Intervention 15.3%

Restorative 15.3%

Safe, safety 14.9%

Healthy, health 13.9%

Enrichment 10.9%

Whole Child 10.9%

Physical activity 7.9%

Keyword Percentage of UIPs

Nurturing, nurture 7.4%

Emotion, emotional 6.9%

Future 6.9%

Respect 6.9%

Challenged, challenge 5.9%

Personal Success Factors 5.9%

Mentor 5.4%

Consequences 4.0%

Counseling 3.0%

Bullying, name-calling, tease, taunt 2.5%

Wrap-around 2.5%

Student voice 2.0%

Grit 1.0%

Inclusion 1.0%

Prevention 1.0%

Resource center 1.0%

Breakfast 0.5%

Creative, creativity 0.5%

Medical 0.5%

District-wide, not all six Whole Child components were well represented in 2015-16 UIPs.

3232

Coherence across data narrative and action plan sections.

37% of 2015-16 UIPs included the same Whole Child keywordin the data narrative and action plan sections.

Network

Keyword appearsin data narrative and action plan

High School 2 – FNE 100.0%High School 4 - WDN 100.0%

Intensive Pathway 90.0%Intensive Pathway 2 84.6%

Middle School 1 66.7%

High School 57.1%High School 3 50.0%

Elem1 50.0%Elem 4 41.7%

Middle School 2 40.0%Elem 6 - Innovation 30.0%

Elem 2 21.1%Elem 3 14.3%Charter 14.0%iZone Network 0.0%Elem 5 0.0%

In 2015-16, middle and high schools had greater coherence of Whole Child keywords across UIP sections.

Network refers to 2016-17 configurations.

For example, only 14.3% of Elementary 3 schools aligned their action plan Whole Child strategies with analysis in their data narrative, which is a first step toward quality incorporation of Whole Child in UIPs.

3333

22 – 29% of schools have a disproportionate concentration of students with more favorable Whole Child outcomes.*

Elementary Schools

Middle Schools

High Schools

30% of elementary schools had a disproportionate concentration of students with low Whole Child outcomes.

25% of middle schools had a disproportionate concentration of students with low Whole Child outcomes.

28% of high schools had a disproportionate concentration of students with low Whole Child outcomes.

22% of elementary schools had a concentration of students with high Whole Child outcomes.

29% of middle schools had a concentration of students with high Whole Child outcomes.

27% of high schools had a concentration of students with high Whole Child outcomes.

*Disproportionate in that more than 30% of students at the school were in the top 25% of WC outcomes in the district.

Top 10 high schools were all intensive pathways or charters.

3434

Whole Child Measurement

Process for instrument creation:

Identification of 150+ pilot items that aligned to the six components of Whole Child

- Internal scan of DPS survey items

- External research efforts in place across country and existing tools (e.g., Gallup Student Poll; Milwaukee School District)

Piloting items within the Student Perception Survey window (Fall 2015)

Draft final items within the Student Satisfaction Survey window (Spring 2016)

Refinement of Whole Child scales based on additional analysis (development is ongoing)

Collaboration for instrument development:

ARE participation in the Whole Child Task Force and Whole Child Steering Team

ARE hosted a cross-departmental Whole Child Measurement Work Group (8 sessions)

Conducted student focus groups and examined student understanding of items; also received feedback from school practitioners, including DAPs/SIPs and Principals knowledgeable about Whole Child

Content expert review of all items and their fit with Whole Child Components

Purpose. Creation of a valid Whole Child Survey that measures student perceptions aligned to the DPS definition of Whole Child

3535

Whole Child Measurement: Limitations

Whole Child measurement in 2015-16 consisted of an operational field test of new Whole Child support scales. While useful as a preliminary indicator of Whole Child support, these measures are still under development.

Please note the following cautions about the 2015-16 Whole Child measures:

• Many subscales consist of very few items, particularly the elementary scales (individual elementary students also only received a subset of available items).

• Many subscales have limited reliability (.42-.90), particularly at the elementary level.

• Some subscales have more limited coverage of the given component than intended.

Items measuring Supported at home are needed.

Healthy currently overemphasizes mental health over physical health.

SEI is not currently measured cohesively.

• Scores reflect a strong ceiling effect.

Refinement of the Whole Child measures will continue this year to achieve improvements and address these concerns. The refinements will be conducted so that data from 2015-16 and 2016-17 may be equated for longitudinal comparisons.

3636

Whole Child Standard Setting

New Whole Child data allows ranking of students/schools with respect to Whole Child support and examination of gaps between student groups and between schools and network/district averages.

However, without Whole Child standards, it is difficult to say whether the district’s Whole Child supports are currently “enough” or how far we have to go to reach a meaningful benchmark.

Having Whole Child standards brings the Whole Child goal in alignment with goals for academic outcomes, graduation, and school quality goals, all of which refer to minimum quality standards.

Process:

Convene committee of district Whole Child experts

Develop support descriptors for each of the 6 components

Experts rate sample student responses to Whole Child survey items against the descriptors.

Ratings are combined across experts to obtain student Whole Child outcome benchmarks.

Timing:

Two of three workshops already completed. Final workshop scheduled for 10/24.

Building towards a final Denver Plan Whole Child goal

37

WHOLE CHILD AND SCHOOL USE

Sample Whole Child Report

Reports to be releasedto Principal Portal on 9/26

3838


3939


4040


4141

Additional Sources of Whole Child Data

Source Data included

WCS Principal Stoplight Student population data, mental health services and supports, social emotional intervention data, behavior data, nursing services and supports, homeless services and supports

Healthy Kids Colorado Report Student survey data

Whole Child Survey (Student SatisfactionSurvey)

Student survey data

Attendance Average attendance, chronic absenteeism, absent periods, tardies

Behavior Out of school suspensions, resolution count, behavior count, discipline by student subgroups (equity and behavior)

All of the resources named above are available on the Principal Portal.

support for the whole child - boarddocs · 2019-05-30 · •whole child case study schools view...

Documents