Staffing in High Performing School Districts

1
Staffing in High Performing School Districts
2
High Performing Schools Characteristics

• A Shared Focus
• Effective Leadership
• Monitoring of Learning and Teaching
• Early Interventions
• Preventative Measures
• Enrichment Opportunities
• Focused Professional Development
• Family and Community Involvement
• Source Northwest Regional Education Lab
  (NWREL) Association for Supervision and
  Curriculum Development (ASCD)

3
Class Size and Student Achievement

• What does the research show?
• Reducing class size to increase student
  achievement
• With fewer students to teach, do students achieve
  at higher levels?

4
Class Size and Student Achievement

• RESEARCH STUDIES
• Project STAR (Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio)
• HEROS Study (Health and Education Research
  Operative Services)
• SAGE Program (Student Achievement Guarantee in
  Education)
• CSR (Class-Size Reduction)
• Source The Center for Public Education, 2006

5
Class Size Findings

• Early intervention, grades (K-3)
• 18 to 1 maximum, student/teacher ratio
• Positive impact on disadvantaged and low-income
  students
• Professional development for teachers and a
  rigorous curriculum are necessary

6
Class Size Findings

• Students in small classes in grades K-3 were
  between six and thirteen months ahead of their
  regular-class peers in math, reading, and science
• Fourth graders in small classes were one-third of
  a grade level ahead of their peers from large
  classes
• Lower class sizes in the primary grades have
  benefits for students throughout their high
  school years

7
Reduced Class Sizes Positive Impacts

• More instructional options for teachers
• Improved classroom atmosphere
• Fewer students to distract each other
• Enable teachers to know the students better
• More individualized attention for students in
  smaller classes

8
Staffing Guidelines Missouri School
Improvement Program

• The program outlines standards for districts in
  staffing in the following areas
• Class sizes at elementary, middle, and high
  school
• Professional support staff librarians and
  guidance counselors
• Administrators central office administrators and
  building principals

9
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• Lindbergh School District
• Enrollment 5,501
• Per Pupil Expenditure 8,489
• Total Certificated Staff 450
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 19 to 1
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance - 6 consecutive years
• Missouri Gold Star Schools Blue Ribbon Schools
  Truman Elementary, Kennerly Elementary, Sperring
  Middle School
• Top 1000 School in the Nation, Newsweek Magazine
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 63
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 63
• Math, Grade 3 66
• Math, Grade 8 59

10
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• Webster Groves School District
• Enrollment 4,068
• Per Pupil Expenditure 9,758
• Total Certificated Staff 368
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 16 to 1
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance
• Missouri Gold Star Schools Avery Elementary,
  Clark Elementary
• MSBA Outstanding School Board Recipient, 2003
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 65
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 63
• Math, Grade 3 69
• Math, Grade 8 59

11
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• Rockwood School District
• Enrollment 22,047
• Per Pupil Expenditure 7,676
• Total Certificated Staff 1715
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 18 to 1
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance
• 14 Missouri Gold Star Schools
• 10 Blue Ribbon Schools
• A perfect score on the States Annual Performance
  Report
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 64
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 65
• Math, Grade 3 64
• Math, Grade 8 63

12
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• School District of Clayton
• Enrollment 2,460
• Per Pupil Expenditure 15,248
• Total Certificated Staff 247
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 12 to 1
• Full-Day Kindergarten
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance
• 7 National Merit Scholar Finalists, 2006
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 62
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 73
• Math, Grade 3 61
• Math, Grade 8 70

13
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• Kirkwood School District
• Enrollment 4,995
• Per Pupil Expenditure 10,133
• Total Certificated Staff 398
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 17 to 1
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance - 6 consecutive years
• Missouri Gold Star School Westchester Elementary
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 62
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 63
• Math, Grade 3 63
• Math, Grade 8 61

14
High Performing Schools St. Louis County
Region

• Ladue School District
• Enrollment 3,505
• Per Pupil Expenditure 11,983
• Total Certificated Staff 349
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 14 to 1
• Full-Day Kindergarten
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance-6 consecutive years
• Missouri Gold Star Schools Conway Elementary
  School, Reed Elementary School
• Blue Ribbon Schools Old Bonhomme Elementary,
  Spoede Elementary, Ladue Middle, Ladue Horton
  Watkins High School
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 66
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 66
• Math, Grade 3 65
• Math, Grade 8 67

15
High Performing Schools Kansas City, MO Region

• Liberty Public School District
• Enrollment 8,463
• Per Pupil Expenditure 8,976
• Total Certificated Staff 713
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 19 to 1
• Full-Day Kindergarten
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance
• MSBA Outstanding School Board Recipient
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 65
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 63
• Math, Grade 3 69
• Math, Grade 8 59

16
Mehlville School District At A Glance

• Mehlville School District
• Enrollment 11,308
• Per Pupil Expenditure 7,140
• Total Certificated Staff 743
• Student to Teacher Ratio (K-12) 20 to 1
• Awards Honors
• Distinction in Performance
• 2006 MAP Scores (Percentage Proficient/Advanced)
• Communication Arts, Grade 3 49
• Communication Arts, Grade 8 49
• Math, Grade 3 54
• Math, Grade 8 54

17
District Comparisons
18
How Do We Compare? Elementary School Student
to Teacher Ratio
19
How Do We Compare? Middle School Student
to Teacher Ratio
Class sizes represent an average of total
students, based on 2006 data from The Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DESE)
20
How Do We Compare? High School Student to
Teacher Ratio
Class sizes represent an average of total
students, based on 2006 data from The Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
21
How Do We Compare? Student to Counselor
Ratio
Class sizes represent an average of total
students, based on 2006 data from The Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DESE)
22
How Do We Compare? Student to Social
Worker Ratio
23
How Do We Compare? Student to Administrator Ratio
Class sizes represent an average of total
students, based on 2006 data from The Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DESE)
24
How Do We Compare?Student to English Language
Learner (ELL) Teacher Ratio
25
How Do We Compare? Student to Instructional
Technology Specialists Ratio
Instructional Technology data reported by
individual districts.
26
How Do We Compare? Student to Librarian
Ratio
27
Mehlville Staffing Case Study

• If we were to take our current staffing and
  adjust it based on research and practices used in
  earlier defined high performing schools, what
  would be the implications?

28
Mehlville Staffing Case Study

• Class Reduction K-3
• Current enrollment K-3 2,918
• Currently 141 K-3 teachers employed
• Approximate Current Student to Teacher ratio K-3
  20.2 to 1
• To reduce class size in grades K-3 at an 18 to 1
  student/teacher ratio, the district would need an
  additional 21 teachers
• 21 teachers x 44,536 (cost of 1st year teacher)
  935,256

29
Mehlville Staffing Case Study

• Class Reduction K-5
• Current enrollment K-5 4,449
• Currently 208 K-5 teachers employed
• Current Student to Teacher ratio K-5 20.2 to 1
• To reduce class size grades K-5 at 18 to 1
  student/teacher ratio, the district would need an
  additional 39 teachers
• 39 teachers x 44,536 (cost of 1st year teacher)
  1,736,904
• Class Size Reduction K-3 Class Size
  Reduction K-5
• 935,256 1,736,904

30
Demographics

• To reach an 18 to 1 student/teacher ratio in
  grades K-3 through attrition, district enrollment
  will need to decrease by 378 students.
• Year 2011-2012, according to recent demographic
  study
• To reach an 18 to 1 student/teacher ratio in
  grades K-5 through attrition, district
  enrollment will need to decrease by 702 students.
• Year 2016-2017, according to the recent district
  demographic study

31
Future Staffing to Consider Full-Day
Kindergarten

• Currently employ 25.5 Kindergarten teachers
• Approximate current student to teacher ratio in
  Kindergarten 19.7 to 1
• To implement full-day Kindergarten, at the
  current student to teacher ratio, the district
  would need an additional 11.5 teachers
• 11.5 teachers x 44,536 (cost of 1st year
  teacher) 512,164

32
Future Staffing to ConsiderFull-Day
Kindergarten Reduced Class Size

• Currently employ 25.5 Kindergarten teachers
• Approximate current student to teacher ratio in
  Kindergarten 19.7 to 1
• To implement full-day Kindergarten, at 18 to 1
  ratio, the district would need an additional 14.5
  teachers
• 14.5 teachers x 44,536 (cost of 1st year
  teacher) 645,772
• Full-Day Kindergarten
• 19.7 to 1 student/teacher ratio 512,164
• 18 to 1 student/teacher ratio 645,772

33
Other Staffing Considerations

• Determine needs for additional staffing
• Computer Technicians/Instructional Technology
• Reading Specialists
• Counselors Social Workers
• ELL Teachers
• Librarians
• Full-Day Kindergarten
• Specialists (PE, music, art, etc.)
• Curriculum Directors/Subject Area Coordinators

34
Implications to Consider

• Facilities needs
• Increased professional development needs
• Increased technology needs, including hardware,
  software, and training
• Transportation
• Materials/supplies

35
Conclusion

• Where do we go from here?
• What are the staffing priorities for the
  Mehlville School District?
• What implications do these needs have on the
  district as a whole?