Teaching and Learning Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be monitored? Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal? We will develop a Quality Assurance Process that: Utilizes student achievement data to identify successful processes and systems Investigates the practices of our most consistently effective educators/schools and identifies instructional practices to replicate across schools, disciplines and grade levels. (2011-2012 for ES and 2012-2013 for MS and 2013-2014 for HS) School Improvement Plans will engage all stakeholders Schools have met with SIP Teams that include a variety of stakeholders – SIP’s were submitted on June 20 and will receive Cabinet Feedback – Principals will review comments in August and submit SIP’s to DOE by September 15, 2012. Quality Assurance Process will include three reviews per year per school These were completed by all principals. Notes from the QAR were reviewed by the Directors of Secondary and Elementary along with the Assistant Superintendent. Follow-up guidance on QAR’s were conducted by the Quality Assurance Coordinator and consultant. Fall QAR’s at the MS and ES level are complete as of 11/12/11. HS and JEL will be completed in December when a more complete data picture can be created. The T&L Team debriefed following the QAR’s. A common reflection template was created for principals and shared by the appropriate director. Development and use of a common template for documentation of school improvement plans A common template by grade level was created for the QAR process. It has evolved through each of the While the Quality Assurance Process is an ongoing goal, steps to implementation include: • 2011-2013 - Capacity building of our current staff through the use of consultants – building capacity to measure, monitor, and utilize data effectively • Ongoing – Consultant will focus on capacity building of MS Principals this year – and, work with new personnel with recent turnover in Quality Assurance. • 2012-2013 - We have begun, in the fall of 2012, to focus our consultant’s work on the schools that are identified by the IDOE as Targeted or Priority Schools based on the state’s A-F Accountability System. The schools have worked with the consultant to develop a detailed work/action plan to monitor both process (deployment of high leverage instructional strategies) and data (the desired results from those instructional strategies). The Elementary Director and identified team members are meeting monthly with each of the targeted school’s administrative team for discussion and updating on the school improvement focus. • Consultant has worked with each MS principal to develop action plans tied to school improvement plans. These action plans are more targeted and detailed at Northview based on its failing grade. The Secondary Director and instructional coaches meet at least monthly to discuss progress on each plan. • MS has identified data points for data dashboard. • Teachers will be trained on D2SC through small group training in departments. • The HS still needs to identify data points (training for teachers will take place second semester through departments). • 2011-2012 - Assess and alter evaluation practices to align with student growth and monitoring of high leverage instructional practices • Student and Teacher Evidences in the new teacher evaluation instrument focus on Core Lesson Design and Best Practices. Ongoing training will be needed. • 2012-2013 – Ongoing PD with evaluators are continuing. PD will include large sessions in December of 2012 and February of 2013. Video samples of teachers in a variety of settings are viewed by evaluators and are practice scored. Continued consultation with IN-TASS assists our decision making
Transcript
Teaching and Learning
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
We will develop a Quality Assurance Process that: Utilizes student achievement data to identify successful processes and systems Investigates the practices of our most consistently effective educators/schools and identifies instructional practices to replicate across schools, disciplines and grade levels. (2011-2012 for ES and 2012-2013 for MS and 2013-2014 for HS)
School Improvement Plans will engage all stakeholders Schools have met with SIP Teams that include a variety of stakeholders – SIP’s were submitted on June 20 and will receive Cabinet Feedback – Principals will review comments in August and submit SIP’s to DOE by September 15, 2012. Quality Assurance Process will include three reviews per year per school These were completed by all principals. Notes from the QAR were reviewed by the Directors of Secondary and Elementary along with the Assistant Superintendent. Follow-up guidance on QAR’s were conducted by the Quality Assurance Coordinator and consultant. Fall QAR’s at the MS and ES level are complete as of 11/12/11. HS and JEL will be completed in December when a more complete data picture can be created. The T&L Team debriefed following the QAR’s. A common reflection template was created for principals and shared by the appropriate director. Development and use of a common template for documentation of school improvement plans A common template by grade level was created for the QAR process. It has evolved through each of the
While the Quality Assurance Process is an ongoing goal, steps to implementation include: • 2011-2013 - Capacity building of our current staff through the use of
consultants – building capacity to measure, monitor, and utilize data effectively
• Ongoing – Consultant will focus on capacity building of MS Principals this year – and, work with new personnel with recent turnover in Quality Assurance.
• 2012-2013 - We have begun, in the fall of 2012, to focus our consultant’s work on the schools that are identified by the IDOE as Targeted or Priority Schools based on the state’s A-F Accountability System. The schools have worked with the consultant to develop a detailed work/action plan to monitor both process (deployment of high leverage instructional strategies) and data (the desired results from those instructional strategies). The Elementary Director and identified team members are meeting monthly with each of the targeted school’s administrative team for discussion and updating on the school improvement focus.
• Consultant has worked with each MS principal to develop action plans tied to school improvement plans. These action plans are more targeted and detailed at Northview based on its failing grade. The Secondary Director and instructional coaches meet at least monthly to discuss progress on each plan.
• MS has identified data points for data dashboard. • Teachers will be trained on D2SC through small group training in
departments. • The HS still needs to identify data points (training for teachers will take place
second semester through departments). • 2011-2012 - Assess and alter evaluation practices to align with student
growth and monitoring of high leverage instructional practices • Student and Teacher Evidences in the new teacher evaluation instrument
focus on Core Lesson Design and Best Practices. Ongoing training will be needed.
• 2012-2013 – Ongoing PD with evaluators are continuing. PD will include large sessions in December of 2012 and February of 2013. Video samples of teachers in a variety of settings are viewed by evaluators and are practice scored. Continued consultation with IN-TASS assists our decision making
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
QAR’s and requires reflection on the data and on programs implemented by the district. The QAR Template has been designed to support the Title I requirements of the SIP and to guide conversations in the building level leadership team work on SIP’s. The final QAR Template included reflection on PBIS as well as achievement data. The QAR Template was revised for the fall 2012 session. Data fields were pre-populated Charts to identify statistically significant shifts in student achievement This practice is continuing and is reflected in the PowerPoint viewed with the board. The statistical charts will continue to be reviewed with principals when developing action plans specific to building needs. Following the IDOE release of school accountability grades, the T&L Team has examined A-F Data more deeply across grade levels. This data analysis has raised additional questions regarding programming and processes. We are sharing more specific growth model data as it relates to subgroups of students – discussing the growth model data with principals (and specifically D and F schools) – The data is not determinative as it is a one year report but achievement gaps are evident. We will continue to
process in identifying Student Achievement and Growth Measures and the metrics to determine Highly Effective through Ineffective on those measures.
• By 2012-2013 100% of WT Principals will use a common template for documentation of School Improvement Plans
• Completed – Could change again according to our usage of the Advanc-ED tool and flexibility in the use of the tool.
• 2011-2013 - Develop administrator and instructor knowledge and confidence in the use of an electronic “Data Warehouse” that compares student achievement data to predetermined benchmarks
• There are still some needed work in this area • Kathy Arruda has provided training at the administrator and teacher level • Fall 2012 – Through preparation for the fall 2012 QAR’s, more efficient and
useful reports from the data are used. • Kathy Arruda has created a report that can be generated at the teacher level
that identifies the testing history of each student on their roster. The report was generated in late November -
• Winter 2013 – Develop a communication plan to share with principals the usefulness of the teacher level report – Determine if the report will be required as an early school-year PLC discussion and data point during the extended teacher time.
• We are in discussions with the Rooney Foundation to assist us in providing targeted teacher level data reports – consolidating data from D2
• Secondary is refining the list of data points to be entered in the Data Warehouse Fall – 2012 Still pending work
• Elementary is eliminating some data points that are currently being entered by teachers in D2
• The writing CFA’s are now written and correlated to the CCSS and IB unit planners. Their rubric scores are currently not being entered into D2. The Aimsweb and STAR Math assessments are downloaded into D2 by the technology staff.
• Ongoing - Professional development activities designed to build capacity in the use of research based instructional strategies such as those emphasized by: Robert Marzano, Mike Schmoker, and Douglas Reeves
• Professional Development is ongoing in: • - Common Core State Standards • - Science Inquiry • 5 Easy Steps to Math
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
monitory the data (assuming the A-F model will stay in its current form) School Improvement Plans will be reassessed and rewritten annually based on student achievement data and changing needs of students As stated above, the SIP’s were submitted on June 20. There will be ongoing review of the SIP template as we prepare for our Advanc-ED Accreditation process. Advanc-ED provides and online template that is efficient in tracking data, administering and reporting survey results, and developing goals. We will review the template and see if we can merge the current QAR Template with the Advanc-ED Template to aid principals in time management and communication with faculty. The Advanc-ED online SIP plan will not be used for this year’s school level plans. Simply – not enough time for training and development. We are, however, continuing to look for the best way to merge the QAR work with the SIP and focus the SIP plan on the most basic and essential information, while at the same time satisfying Title I requirements. Options include: Working SIP plans backward from the Strategic Plan; Requiring the same overarching goals and allowing for autonomy by school regarding interventions that address unique needs. Evaluation and Observation
• Unit Planning in IB/Scope and Sequence • Literacy • Technology Training with ENL and Lexia –Lexia staff is training key staff at
each elementary school. Second year implementation is in progress. • MS and elementary instructional coaches are providing ongoing support to
individual teachers in the area of Five Easy Steps, Marzano’s Vocabulary Framework, and the Common Core State Standards.
• Elementary Science inquiry and test genre staff development is planned for winter 2013.
• Ongoing – Data “dashboards” developed for each school that align with school improvement goals. These snapshots of data can be utilized to inform and direct instructional focus and professional development design
• This has started with the process of the QAR Template. However, we need to build on the capacity of D2/Rooney Foundation to provide the Dashboards that will be useful at the teacher level.
• Fall 2012 – We did not partner with Rooney Foundation. We have developed more capacity among our principals and are providing data support through restructuring of job responsibilities in the Technology Department, data support for principals in the completion of QAR documentation, and providing data to the T&L Team prior to the QAR.. The QAR template did change for the Fall 2012 reviews. The template now is pre-populated with data for our principals. They then have time to reflect on the data, and focus the QAR on the processes and actions taken as a result of the data. The QAR now focuses on questions that relate to the school’s SIP Goals – the data supports their actions.
• Fall 2012 – Kathy Arruda has designed a “Dashboard” report that can be generated for teachers at the individual or team level and assist with the PLC time and team work on student achievement data. This report has just been created and has not been shared with principals as of 11/16/12. – We will share with them and our T&L Team for input on the best method of deployment.
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
processes will focus on clear objectives related to practices identified as successful through the quality assurance process Rubrics were created and utilized to monitor the deployment of: - 90 Minute Reading Block - PLC Participation and Fidelity - Marzano Vocabulary - Daily Math Review - 5 Easy Steps (Math) - IB Deployment
The T&L Leadership visited each school and focused on application of IB principles when visiting classrooms. Division leaders debriefed with principals to determine challenges and give advice and support for IB deployment district-wide. Fall – 2012 The T&L Leadership has continued to visit classrooms in each school. The focus of 2012-2013 will be Domain II (Instruction) using the new teacher evaluation model. T&L Leadership Team members debrief with principals or evaluators immediately after visiting classrooms. The Domain II performance indicators are discussed with the evaluator – evidence seen or not seen of use of the indicators is discussed – a common definition of each indicator will take time, however, this process will begin to focus on the specific competencies desired of classroom teachers when meeting the performance indicators.
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
The T&L Leadership will debrief bi-monthly and shape common definitions and determine PD needed for evaluators based on our on-site visits.
We will become authorized as an International Baccalaureate (IB) World School Corporation By 2011-2012 Washington Township will successfully complete the IB Authorization Process in the Primary Years Program. By 2012-2013 Washington Township will successfully complete the IB Authorization Process in the Middle Years Program.
MSD of Washington Township will receive authorization and will deliver curriculum though the IB framework in the Primary Years Program (PYP) – grades K-5 and the Middle Years Program (MYP) – grades 6-10 • 2011-2012 – Continue to develop
unit lessons K-10 per IB requirements
• Ongoing - IB coordinators at each school will build capacity of faculty to develop and deliver lessons per IB requirements
• 2011-2013 (and ongoing) – Pursue an aggressive campaign to gain funds necessary to sustain IB Program into the future
• Dr. Woodson announced an $800,000 commitment from the community at the end of the year celebration
• Student work and district instructional and assessment practices will reflect the IB framework.
• Feedback from both the PYP and MYP consultants note extremely positive results in this area
PYP 2011-2012 • Submit Application B (October) • Host IB Authorization Visit (Winter/Spring) • Teach 6 Unit Planners • Implement Required Policies PYP 2012-2013 • Implement 5th Grade Exhibition • Debrief off-site training • Develop purpose and vision for Exhibition • Develop time line for implementation – long and short term • Create introductory presentation for parents, students, and all staff • Draft Academic Honesty Policy and share with PYP coordinators • Create professional development workshop for 5th grade teachers • Share draft of Academic Honesty Policy with school teams and submit
feedback to lead coordinator • Deliver All Teacher Exhibition professional development – to occur at the
building level • Deliver 5th Grade Teacher Exhibition professional development • Revise Academic Honesty Policy Based on school feedback and send revised
version to PYP coordinators • Develop building-based Exhibition roles and responsibilities • Finalize Academic Honesty Policy • Develop specific school-based action plan for Exhibition implementation • Continue curriculum development (on-going) • Training occurs for all new teachers and any others not yet trained • Grade level teacher teams, IB coordinators, and specialists meet at each
school monthly to continue curriculum and unit planner design. PYP IB Authorization Process The Authorization of all seven schools is expected to be officially
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
announced in December 2012. When this occurs, a timeline for celebration includes:
• Invitations sent to families and staff to attend CEC Winter Celebration • Principals announce to staff, with special recognition of the IB
coordinators • Advance media advisory sent out with dates for press conference and
celebrations • Press release and Connect Ed message sent • IB Head Council celebration • PYP coordinator celebration • School Board Meeting celebration with CEC team and each school’s
administrative team • Information posted on website, Facebook and newsletters • School convocation celebrations
MYP 2012-2013 • MS and HS have implemented the Academic Honesty Policy, and are in the
process of developing and finalizing Language, Special Educational Needs, and Assessment Policies.
• MS have created at least one Interdisciplinary Unit per grade level for implementation during spring, 2013. Collaborative planning between subject areas will continue to expand.
• MS and HS arts teachers have begun implementation of the Developmental Workbook. All students in arts classes will be keeping a Developmental Workbook by the 2013-14 school year.
• MS are modifying existing unit planners in anticipation of the 2014 MYP, The Next Chapter updates.
• MS and HS are developing expanded processes to review and reflect on units of inquiry.
• MS and HS are addressing heightened awareness of MYP in the school community and community at large.
• MS and HS are updating Action Plans on an ongoing basis. PYP 2013-2014 • Complete IB Self-Study PYP 2014-2015 • Host IB Program Evaluation Visit MYP 2011-2012
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
• Implement Unit Planner (1-3 Units Depending on School/Subject) • Develop Required IB Policies (Assessment, Language, Special Needs,
Academic Honesty) • Host IB Consultant MYP 2012-2013 • Submit Application B (October) Changed to April 2013 • Host IB Authorization Visit (Winter/Spring) Changed to Fall 2013 • Implement Required IB Policies • Continue Curriculum Development (On-Going) MYP 2013-2014 • Implement 10th Grade Personal Project Changed to 2014-2015 MYP 2014-2015 • Complete IB Self-Study Changed to 2015-2017 MYP 2015-2016 • Host IB Program Evaluation Visit Changed to 2017-2018
MSD of Washington Township will receive an additional 5 year accreditation during the 2012-2013 School Year by Advanc-Ed Accreditation
• School Improvement Plans will continue to be designed utilizing the AdvancED Framework
• District Strategic Plan will be developed, implemented, and revised utilizing the AdvancED Framework
• Principals and Division Leaders will design yearly goals for each division utilizing the AdvancED Framework
• Comprehensive program evaluation documentation will be created for several instructional programs.
Determine and document the expected common or core practices for each program.
Plan and conduct a process capability/fidelity audit to
• 2011-2012 – Develop a timeline for preparation of the 2012-2013 accreditation visit
• 2011-2012 – Engage stakeholders in discussions and preparation of accreditation visit
• 2012-2013 – host visitation team and implement self-assessment process per Advanc-ED requirements
• Ongoing Quality Assurance efforts (including School Improvement Plan development and Quality Assurance Review Processes) will connect to Advanc-ED accreditation process
• 2011-2012 - Select three to five programs to evaluate thoroughly • We evaluated the following programs: • After School Achievers • Achieve 3000 (although not as thoroughly as necessary) This has been
identified as a secondary tool • Adjustments to ASA was made based on program evaluation. Tutors and site
coordinators were trained on the vocabulary model used in the classrooms. ENL Students in ASA are being supported by Butler students through a partnership. Group instruction is taking place at ASA rather than total independent work of students.
• - Aimsweb (looking at correlation of scores to ISTEP results)
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
determine the degree to which the core program process is being deployed in each targeted classroom
• Report findings and recommendations
• Alterations to program deployment of Achieve 3000 were a result of evaluation (more MS, less ES); Alterations to the ASA program were a result of evaluation; Alteration of our T&L Visitation focus will be a result of evaluation (although not a large scale program); Lexia, AVID, and Read 180 all need a more comprehensive evaluation.
• Reviewing Alternative Education Options – Fall 2012
• We need to continue the priority of identifying programs that provide the best supports for our students. This will remain a priority for 2012-2013 as we did not meet this goal to a high level of satisfaction
• 2011-2012 – Prioritize the evaluation timeline for remaining programs • 2012-2013 – Begin to eliminate or phase out programs that result in
unnecessary duplication of efforts or yields inconsistent or undesired results • Reviewing Alternative Education Options – Met three times with large
Alternative Education Group – Met with HS Administration, Adult Ed Administration, JEL Administration – Determining feasibility of using NC Tech School in manner more focused on credit recovery and alternative to expulsion – Reviewing feasibility of creating supports beginning in 2013-2014 (planning and discussion as of 11/16/2012)
• 2013-2015 – Continue process of program evaluation • Fall 2012 – Re-Shaping our thinking and monitoring of processes (teaching)
not programs. The programs being deployed have shown encouraging data both in our district and nationally – however, a focus on process will allow us to better understand the impact of the program as these programs require fidelity in implementation – In addition, the QAR, T&L Classroom Visits, and data is leading us to focus on core instruction as a key component to student achievement (and in a sense a program unto itself)
By 2012-13 Special Services will: Identify systems and measures that will be used consistently across all grade levels that measure student growth for special populations. Identify effective practices that must be in place to differentiate instruction for all special populations in the CORE curriculum.
Quarterly reports to Superintendent and Teaching and Learning Division.
We will work in collaboration with the Teaching and Learning Division to build capacity for ongoing data collection, analysis, and decision-making. We will: • Identify existing data sources and review existing data. (Summer – 2012) • During the 2011-12 school year, teachers of special education and ENL
progress monitored identified students with disabilities and ENL in grades K-5 using the AIMSweb Literacy assessment. Both student groups improved throughout the year, but a faster rate is needed to close the gap. On-going training is needed to assist teachers in reviewing the results and determine the effectiveness of the interventions.
• 2012-2013 – Beginning the fall semester of 2012, teachers of special education and ENL continued to progress monitor identified students with disabilities and ENL in grades K-5 using the AIMSweb Literacy assessment and STAR Math. Fall results show that students are improving but overall the percent of identified students passing the AIMSweb R-CBM at/above grade level compared to their grade level peers continues to lag behind anywhere from 1% to 49%.
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
• Winter school data that will be collected in December will be compared with the fall school data that was collected in August.
• MSDWT assisted norming the AIMSweb on a sample of ENL by providing local data that was collected in 2011-12; normative data was provided to the district mid-fall.
• Data reviews concerning progress will continue to take place during PLC’s • Professional development to assist teachers in reviewing the results and on-
going professional development was provided and will continue as needed. • Middle schools have identified the STAR Renaissance and Scholastic Reading
Inventory (SRI) as the measures for grades 6-8. • Like elementary schools, winter school data collected in December will be
compared with the fall school data that was collected in August. • More specific professional development to assist middle school teachers in
reviewing the results and determine the effectiveness of the interventions is needed. This will be done through small group training as a department.
• Achieve3000 is being utilized as a growth measure for middle school and high school ENL students. Results show positive LEXILE growth in all grades.
• Select progress monitoring tools for grades K – 12. (Fall – 2012) • The AIMSweb Literacy assessment will continue to be used as the progress
monitoring tool for grades K-5 and the Star Renaissance for grades 6-8. We need to identify the tool that will be used to progress monitor students in grades 9-12. This will be a priority for the first quarter of the 2012-13 school year.
• The AIMSweb Literacy and STAR Math will continue to be used as progress monitoring tools for special populations for grades K-5.
• Middle schools have identified the STAR Renaissance and Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) as the measures for grades 6-8.
• The HS still needs to identify specific monitoring tools for students with identified disabilities. The need for indentifying primary and secondary measures for student achievement and growth as a part of the teacher evaluation process has assisted in making the system more focused on measures but more work needs to be done. This will be done spring semester as a department.
• Determine who will collect the data and how often. (Fall – 2012) • For grades K-8, teachers of Special education will continue to progress
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
monitor students with disabilities 1x weekly and ENL teachers will progress monitor L1 and L2 students 1xweekly. We need to identify how often students in grades 9-12 will be progress monitored and by whom. This will be a priority for the first quarter of the 2012-13 school year.
• For grades K-8, teachers of special education will continue to progress monitor students with disabilities at least 1x per 2 weeks and ENL teachers will progress monitor L1 and L2 students at least 1x monthly.
• We still need to determine how often high school students should be progress monitored and by whom. This will be done spring semester.
• Identify practices that must be in place in the CORE. • The administrators for special services met with an expert and discussed
student measures and instruction in general. • We examined research, School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and the MSDWT
teacher evaluation rubric to identify core best practices for special populations.
• We met with Directors of Elementary and Secondary Education and Curriculum Coordinator to make sure there are connections to IB and the Quarterly Annual Reviews.
• We used the rubric to observe selected teachers in grades 1-8 whose students (including special populations) generally produce high performance.
• We will interview the selected teachers and the special services teachers involved with the classes to find out how they work together to plan for and instruct the students. We will summarize our findings about these practices in November/December.
• Early spring semester, we will meet with a team of teachers and principals to examine what we think are the best practices for special populations. After review and discussion, this information will be shared with Directors of Elementary and Secondary Education and principals.
• Early spring semester, findings will be reviewed with Special Education and ENL teachers and principals.
• Professional development activities that will be needed to implement the best practices will be planned accordingly and grants will be appropriated.
• Develop clear criteria that support decision-making. (Spring – 2013) • Set goals for student performance using existing baseline data. (Spring -
2013)
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
• Organize materials for on-going data collection. (Spring – 2013) • Provide professional development activities designed to assist in measuring
student growth. (Summer –2012) • In progress—training will take place at start of school year for all new
teachers of special education and ENL. • Provide professional development activities designed to build on the SIOP
model and provide practical examples about how to apply in core content areas. (Summer – 2012)
• Provided training in June and will also provide for all new teachers in August. By 2013-14 Special Services will implement systems, measures, effective instructional practices and intensive interventions with fidelity that will be used consistently with special populations across all grade levels.
Quarterly reports to Superintendent and Teaching and Learning Division. Average score on the rubric for monitoring.
We will work in collaboration with the Teaching and Learning Division to: • Create a rubric for monitoring implementation; tie into PLC observation and
Lesson Design checklist. (Summer - 2013) • Provide on-going professional development about how to implement
effective programs and practices with fidelity. (Summer/Fall – 2013 and Spring- 2014)
By 2014-15 Special Education will assess and alter evaluation practices to align with student growth and monitoring of programs and practices.
Quarterly reports to Superintendent and Teaching and Learning Division. Average score on the rubric for monitoring.
We will continue to work in collaboration with the Teaching and Learning Division to: • Provide on-going professional development activities designed to sustain or
By 2014-15, Elementary School Language Arts – Reading will have a ninety minute uninterrupted reading framework effectively implemented in every classroom. Process Effectiveness Goals and Measures: % of classrooms effectively deploying the 90 Minute Reading Block. 2012-2013 60%
Student Results Measures: 1. % of students passing the annual
ISTEP+ scores in LA 2. % of students passing the ISTEP+
at the Pass+ level in LA. 3. % of grade 3 students passing the
Indiana I Read assessment in the spring ISTEP each year.
4. Average number of minutes per day that students are actually engaged in reading, not reading instruction.
Three-Phase Plan: 2012-13: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the 90-minute reading block in all General Education classrooms. • All schools deployed the 90 minute reading block in all classrooms based on
the framework design and following staff development by reading coaches and reading specialists
• Administrators and specialists gave feedback to teachers, verbally and/or written
• Additional staff development was provided based on feedback from observations and teacher requests
• Reading common formative assessments and the reading pacing guides, based on the new common core standards, were deployed and results from
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
2013-2014 75% 2014-2015 90%
5. % of students at or above grade level in fall, winter and spring on the AIMSweb assessment
6. See Appendix A for Fall School Data.
CFAs guided much of the work of the professional learning community meetings
• Pacing guides and CFAs were revised in May and June 2012 based on teacher input
• 91% of elementary teachers are effectively deploying the 90-minute reading block with fidelity.
• New teachers are in need of more support and ongoing staff development. All new elementary teachers meet monthly for staff development with the Director of Elementary Education and the literacy and math Coaches. Each school also has monthly staff development for teachers.
• Additional staff development needed includes Increase Rigor of Instruction, Vocabulary Development and Small Group Targeted Work.
2013-14: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the Writing block (writing across the curriculum) and broad effective deployment of the Core Lesson Design. 2014-15: IB lessons are appropriately integrated into reading lesson plans Note: Quarterly Quality Reviews will be conducted each year. A detailed project schedule with tasks, starting/ending dates and responsibilities are defined for the first year. • Additional time for writing has been identified by teachers and
administrators as a need for elementary students and time has been added to the elementary day that will provide this
• Launching the Writer’s Workshop by Smekens was identified as a highly effective tool for use by all elementary teachers and has been purchased for each teacher to use as a basis for the writing block beginning fall 2012
• Writer’s Workshop checklist will be implemented in fall 2012 to guide writing process
• Literacy coaches and specialists will attend training by Smekens in August 2012 and provide training at each school on early am staff development days
• Core lesson design was discussed and added to the new K-12 teacher evaluation tool
2012-13: Training and piloting of the Core Lesson design. 2013-14 Broad and effective deployment of the Core Lesson Design 2014-15: Broad integration into reading, writing, math, science, social studies with integration of IB.
By 2014-15, the Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Math Program framework will be
1. % of grade 1-5 students scoring 95%-100% on the spring Math Facts tests each year
Three-Phase Plan: 2012-13: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the Five Easy Steps to Math in all math classrooms K-8
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
effectively implemented in every classroom. Process Effectiveness Goals % of classrooms effectively deploying Five Easy Steps to Math as measured by observation scores. 2012-2013 60% 2013-2014 75% 2014-2015 90%
2. % of students passing the annual ISTEP+ scores in math
3. % of students performing at grade level on STAR Math assessment.
4. % of students passing the Algebra Core 40 assessment.
5. See Appendix A for Fall School Data.
• Half of the middle school math teachers received two days of training in FES • Math coach will provide individual training and support to those who were
not able to attend training over the course of the 12-13 school year • Math coach will assist administration during 12-13 school year to monitor
the level of implementation in each classroom • Math pacing guides and CFAs were revised in May and June 2012 • Elementary 60 Minute Math Plan will be deployed (based on Five Easy Steps)
in fall 2012 • An additional 10 minutes per day will be allocated to the elementary day to
the conceptual teaching of math facts in fall 2012 • 94% of elementary teachers are effectively deploying the Five Easy Steps to
Math with fidelity. • Additional training needed includes problem solving, conceptual
understanding of number sense, and conceptual understanding of the math CCSS.
• 79% of the MS math teachers are implementing the Daily Math Review with fidelity, including the DMR quizzes.
• 74% of the MS math teachers are implementing the mental math portion of the framework with fidelity (typically done during transitions).
• 47% of the MS math teachers are implementing the problem solving portion of the framework with fidelity (additional training needs to take place – aligns well with Common Core implementation).
• 100% of the MS math teachers are using common formative assessments to drive instruction (this looks different in each building and must become more aligned to become more effective).
• Additional training from the math coach will provide support for those who are not sure how to implement with fidelity, and the administration will force the issue with those who are not in compliance.
2013-14: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the instruction of math facts and the effective deployment of the Core Lesson Design in 50% in all math classrooms K-8. 2014-15: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the Core Lesson Design in all math classrooms K-8. Note: Quarterly Quality Reviews will be conducted each year. A detailed project schedule with tasks, starting/ending dates and responsibilities are defined for the first year.
By 2014-15, a vocabulary Student Results Measures: Three-Phase Plan:
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
framework using the Common Core vocabulary in all content areas will be effectively implemented in every classroom using Marzano’s Six Step Vocabulary Process. Process Effectiveness Goals % of teachers effectively deploying Marzano’s vocabulary framework. 2012-2013 60% 2013-2014 75% 2014-2015 90% % of teachers effectively deploying writing across the curriculum as defined by district expectations – focusing on expository/argumentative writing. 2012-2013 50% 2013-2014 80% 2014-2015 100%
1. % of students passing the annual ISTEP+ scores in LA.
2. % of students passing the ISTEP+ at the Pass+ level.
3. % of students passing the Vocabulary assessment in the spring of each year.
4. The average % increase in the student score on the SRI.
5. The average score on the Evidence of the Core Lesson Design observations.
2012-13: Identify and develop vocabulary words for each discipline by grade level and train all associated faculty in Marzano’s vocabulary framework. Develop a framework by which all teachers can develop relevant and meaningful writing assignments in each content area. • All middle school departments have identified vocabulary words that will be
taught utilizing Marzano’s strategies • EW and WL have already trained all faculty and spent the second semester
implementing vocab strategies. • NV faculty will be trained first quarter of 12-13 and incorporate the
strategies beginning quarter two. • Certain NC staff trained in similar strategies through CCSS Literacy initiative.
Strategies also piloted by selected teachers. • Elementary pacing guide updates include new common core vocabulary • 63% of elementary teachers are effectively deploying Marzano’s vocabulary
framework. • There is a need for grades 3-5 students to use a specific vocabulary notebook
rather than allowing each school its autonomy. Principals believe that a specific notebook will better ensure the fidelity of using specific explicit vocabulary instruction.
• Additional staff development needed includes explicit vocabulary instruction. • 81% of the MS teachers are implementing Marzano’s vocabulary framework
with fidelity. • These schools are also conducting spot checks of the student vocabulary
workbook to hold teachers accountable. • Training continues to be provided to struggling teachers by the literacy
coach. • Administrators will ensure that all teachers are in compliance with
implementation expectations. 2013-14: Achieve fidelity of deployment of the Vocabulary Framework, writing across the curriculum, and broad effective deployment of the Core Lesson Design. 2014-15: IB lessons are fully integrated into lesson plans Note: Three times per year, Quality Reviews will be conducted each year. A detailed project schedule with tasks, starting/ending dates and responsibilities are defined for the first year.
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
By 2014-15, the Common Core Literacy standards for writing will be implemented in all content areas grades K-12.
Classroom walk throughs, observations, professional learning community meetings and faculty meetings.
For 2012-13: • Indiana Academic Standards (IAS) & Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
English Language Arts (ELA) for grades 2-10 • IAS & CCSS Math Grades 2-12 • CCSS Only ELA & Math Grades K-1 • ELA Grades 11-12 • SS, Science, Technical Subjects Literacy Standards Grades 6-12 • MS and HS Teachers began discussing the crosswalk between Indiana
Academic Standards and the Common Core State Standards • Technical subject teachers began the process of determining where CCSS will
be embedded in the curriculum • CCSS will be modeled in middle school courses by the math and literacy
coaches throughout 12-13 school year • CC literacy standards will be implemented in the MS and the HS in all
technical subjects, humanities and science courses during 12-13 • Elementary pacing guide updates include new common core vocabulary • Professional development of awareness and understanding of the CCSS
occurred as a part of the elementary reading program evaluation and textbook adoption.
• CCSS professional development occurred with the IB Head Council • Reading coaches and specialists, along with key teachers from each school,
will plan, design and implement CCSS staff development for each of their schools in winter 2013
• Grade 2 classroom teachers teach CCSS throughout the school year (K-1 teachers already have been teaching these)
• Created timeline for CCSS Rollout • Presented CCSS information to department chairs including sample PARCC
assessment questions • Established a plan providing teachers with release time to incorporate CCSS
literacy standards • IB unit planners and summative assessments will be designed and tied to
common core writing standards, and grade level teams will revise the MSDWT pacing guide
For 2013-14: • IAS & CCSS Grades 3-10 • IAS & CCSS Math Grades 3-12
Goal Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timely
Progress Monitoring How will progress toward this goal be
monitored?
Action Plan What are the steps and timeline to achieve this goal?
• CCSS Only ELA & Math Grades K-2 • ELA Grades 11-12 • SS, Science, Technical Subjects Literacy Standards Grades 6-12 2014-15: • CCSS Only ELA All Grades, Math All Grades • SS, Science, Technical Subjects Literacy Standards Grades 6-12
By 2014-15, Secondary School RtII will implement a highly effective framework providing students with the additional support necessary for academic success.
Student Results and Measures: 1. Students will be progress
monitored every 2 weeks to examine growth.
2. % of students will improve at a rate equal to twice as much as expected growth after interventions provided.
3. % of students taking part in process will be reading at grade level.
Three-Phase Plan: 2012-13: Targeted students will be progress monitored every 2 weeks. A Core+ curriculum will be developed providing teachers a framework by which to address identified areas of weakness. Targeted interventions will be developed addressing each area of concern. • Progress monitoring tool in E/LA was identified semester one and
implemented semester two in sixth grade Core+ E/LA classes (STAR Reading)
• STAR Reading will be incorporated into grades seven and eight Core+ E/LA classes at beginning of 12-13 school year
• STAR Math implemented in grade six to progress monitor all middle school Core+ math grade students and bench mark all other math classes
• STAR Math will be implemented in grade seven and eight math classes for benchmarking and in Core+ math classes for progress monitoring
• Defined Tier II interventions for MS and began discussing Tier III options but still much work to do with Tier III
• Students who are not working at grade level in ELA or mathematics are being progress monitored every two weeks using STAR math and STAR Reading.
• Interventions based on progress monitoring data are being implemented weekly.
• Forms to monitor the students, who are in need of a high level of support, were created to ensure that intense interventions are provided.
2013-14: Begin to evaluate the effectiveness of the universal screener and the progress monitoring tool to make sure it is effectively identifying students and their growth. 2014-15: Dialogue will continue at the middle level to determine if the developed RtII framework is working effectively.
In addition to the above Strategic Plan Goals, the T&L Division spent significant time on the following items during the 2011-2012 School Year: - Altered student day length beginning in 2012 - Altered the length of the teacher day beginning in 2012 - Changed the School Calendar format for 2012-2013 - Developed a new WT Teacher Evaluation System – 98% positive vote from teachers that voted - Developed a comprehensive list of teacher and student evidences to inform the WT Township Teacher Evaluation System - Completed a significant portion of Student Achievement Measures to be used to inform the WT Teacher Evaluation System - Began implementation of Common Core State Standards - Partnered with DOE to introduce Common Core Literacy Standards in the secondary level - Met with multiple groups of teachers to alter Teacher and Student Evidences according to subject taught - Conducted monthly classroom observations at all levels providing principals feedback about classroom instruction - Provided forums for stakeholders at multiple Washington Township Advisory Council Meetings - Conducted an onsite all day training for evaluators - Selected a method for evaluation of administrators - Worked with School Board to approve 21 policies - Worked with Cabinet to revise multiple guidelines
Items Shared 9/2012 The MSDWT Teaching & Learning Division is working continuously to improve our schools. Below is a list of the some of the accomplishments/projects that were done:
• Analyzed past data-Aimsweb compared to ISTEP • PD, Data Analysis (at building level w/ consultant and directors) • Achieve 3000 - Expanded use, purchased licenses • ALEKS licenses purchased • Math & Literacy Coach – middle level • Behavior Coaches added at 2 schools • Purchased System 44 licenses for Eastwood • Rewrote pacing guides for ENL to include Common Core Standards • Expanded ENL PD opportunities throughout the year • Altered writing curriculum at elementary to tie into unit planner, common core, to use as benchmarks 3x per year • ENL Summer School - Focus on getting students from Level 4 to Level 5 - Data showed level 5 = 90% pass on ISTEP • Needs per individual school – meeting with principals to give them some autonomy in School
Improvement Planning and use of new Teacher Meeting Times
• Technology upgrades July/Aug – designed ENL pd for new teachers (Charlie) • Inquiry Training / Instructional Coaches at every building - Hired E/LA and Math Coach for MS • Established Alternative Education Task Force - Representation from all levels • Revised QAR Template - Individualized by school's SIP • Provided PD on Literacy - Elementary • MS have looked at Core + instructional time NV has really changed • Common Formative Assessment PD that all of NV went through • MS are progress monitoring – established a protocol for all students who are in Core+ • Butler students to provide student tutors • Restructured the after school achievers focus – more academic • Restructured admin teams at some schools • New Teacher Evaluation Plan has been implemented • D2 - Stepped up training with principals
19 | P a g e
Appendix A Elementary Fall School Data 2012 District Data Norm-Referenced Assessments – compare students to average range of those currently taking this in our nation (Aimsweb, Star Math, etc). Criterion-Referenced – benchmarks are set by the company (DRA, IRI) and are used for instruction and diagnosis of academic needs. It is not a good predictor of ISTEP data.
Table 1 Letter Naming Frequency – Norm-Referenced
Percent Proficient Kindergarten Grade 1 Allisonville N/A 66% Crooked Creek
67% 71%
Fox Hill 41% 43% Greenbriar 52% 56% John Strange 68% 61% Nora 37% 63% Spring Mill 57% 48%
Table 2
Nonsense Words – Norm-Referenced Percent Proficient
Grade 1 Allisonville 71% Crooked Creek
64%
Fox Hill 31% Greenbriar 43% John Strange 62% Nora 65% Spring Mill 52%
Allisonville 3.75/ A Crooked Creek 4.0/ A Fox Hill 1.75/ D Greenbriar 2.00/ C John Strange 1.50/ D Nora 0.50/ F Spring Mill 2.25/ C
A-F Accountability Conversion Tables
Conversion of Percentages to Points
Conversion of Points to Letter Grades
90-100% 4.00 points 3.51-4.00 A 85-89.9% 3.50 points 3.00-3.50 B 80-84.9% 3.00 points 2.00-2.99 C 75-79.9% 2.50 points 1.00-1.99 D 70-74.9% 2.00 points 0.00-0.99 F 65-69.9% 1.50 points 60-64.9% 1.00 points 0-59.9% 0.00
24 | P a g e
Appendix B Middle School Fall School Data 2012 District Data Norm-Referenced Assessments – compare students to average range of those currently taking this in our nation (SRI, STAR Math, etc.).
Table 1
Scholastic Reading Inventory (Comprehension) – Norm-Referenced Percent At or Above Grade Level
Eastwood 3.00/ B Northview .75/ F Westlane 2.25/ C
A-F Accountability Conversion Tables
Conversion of Percentages to Points Conversion of Points to Letter
Grades 90-100% 4.00 points 3.51-4.00 A 85-89.9% 3.50 points 3.00-3.50 B 80-84.9% 3.00 points 2.00-2.99 C 75-79.9% 2.50 points 1.00-1.99 D 70-74.9% 2.00 points 0.00-0.99 F 65-69.9% 1.50 points 60-64.9% 1.00 points 0-59.9% 0.00
27 | P a g e
Appendix C
Vocabulary Notebook Plan for Grades 4 and 5 Teachers
Teaching Academic Vocabulary is for all Students and Teachers
1. The pilot vocabulary notebooks will be delivered to schools by January 7, 2013. 2. Reading and math coaches will lead the vocabulary notebook discussion at each school’s already
scheduled grades 4 and 5 teacher math meetings in early January. Please include a representative from ENL and special education who works with these grade levels.
3. Discussion topics of that meeting will include: • Purpose and use of the vocabulary notebook • How to teach multiple exposures of academic vocabulary in the classroom • Information of the flip chart and its use • Sharing by teachers of their additional vocabulary professional development needs
4. Identified staff will attend the February 22, 2013 Smekens workshop, Academic Vocabulary, Improving Students’ Content Knowledge by Targeting Essential Concepts in Indianapolis. Jessica will send workshop and registration flyers to identified staff on January 7. Identified staff will include: literacy and math specialists and coaches, ENL coaches, and an identified ENL and a special education teacher. Either the principal or assistant principal from each school may attend for free since each school will be sending a team. Registration and professional leave forms should be sent to Cathy Brinkman at the CEC by January 21. Expectations of all attendees is to support our vocabulary plan as it rolls out in the spring and fall of 2013.
5. The Strategies for Success book (the vocabulary chapter) will be used during ongoing PLC and staff meetings. This particular chapter is applicable to all students.
6. Principals will monitor grades 4 and 5 academic vocabulary instruction. 7. Some grades 4 and 5 teachers will pilot the new vocabulary notebook. Other teachers have chosen
to use other resources already approved by their principal. 12/21/12
