DISTRICT STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012-13...The District has developed a one-year Strategic...

GREENWICH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DISTRICT

STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

2012-13

Submitted December 16, 2011

The District has developed a one-year Strategic Improvement Plan for 2012-13 to continue the work initiated in the 2009-2012 plan. The District Strategic Improvement Plan is developed and monitored by the Greenwich District Data Team (GDDT). The GDDT meets monthly to monitor data and District action plans, and to develop ongoing strategies for improvement for the District as a whole. The Greenwich District Data Team members are: Roger Lulow, Superintendent of Schools and GDDT Chairman

Ellen Flanagan, Deputy Superintendent

Stacey Gross, Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum, Instruction & Professional Learning

Brigid Barry, House Administrator/English

Brenda Brush, District Coach – Math

Sheila Civale, Program Coordinator – Science

John Curtin, Special Projects Manager

Cathy Delehanty, GEA President

Kim Eves, Director of Communications

Mary Forde, Director of Pupil Personnel Services

Janice Gunnip, Director of Educational Technology

Jennifer Mitchell, Program Coordinator – Reading/Language Arts

Ralph Mayo, Principal Eastern Middle School

Jarret Pepe, Asst. Principal Western Middle School & Social Studies Program Coordinator

Barbara Riccio, Principal New Lebanon School

Angela Schmidt, Principal North Minaus School

Charles Smith, Principal North Street School

Truxtun Southworth, Program Coordinator - Math

Chris Winters, Headmaster Greenwich High School

Page 1

In the spring of 2009, the district embarked on a mission to develop a Holistic Accountability System. Student centered accountability, or holistic accountability, refers to a system that includes not only academic achievement scores, but also specific information on curriculum, teaching and leadership practices. It includes a balance of quantitative and qualitative indicators (the story behind the numbers) and focuses on the progress of individual students (Douglas Reeves, 2004). At the time the Greenwich Public Schools had many components of a Holistic Accountability System, but the major missing piece was a process and product that integrated and aligned these components into a focused, unified whole. It is this process of alignment, focus and integration that increases the power of the work of the numerous and diverse stakeholders that all contribute to the success of the Greenwich Public Schools (GPS) as we strive to continually improve student achievement. We began this process by establishing the Greenwich District Data Team (GDDT).

The Greenwich District Data Team (GDDT) was established in March 2009 and charged with developing a three year, comprehensive, and coherent District Improvement Plan that included district goals and the designing, implementing, and monitoring of action plans intended to meet those district goals. Two broad goals were developed by the GDDT, both based on the GPS Mission, Values and Beliefs, and the Vision of the Graduate (attached).

Goal 1: Each student will achieve mastery of a core body of knowledge and skills that reflects significant academic growth.

Goal 2: Each student will demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to effectively function in an interdependent global community.

The Board of Education monitors the achievement of the students enrolled in the Greenwich Public Schools through a District “report card” (Success System) that includes standardized assessment measures aligned to these two broad academic goals (attached). The District as a whole and individual schools set performance targets for each of these measures (attached). Progress toward the targets is analyzed to identify areas of strength and concern. Action plans are developed at both the District and school levels to address concerns.

Identifying areas of underperformance is the first step in developing an improvement plan. Understanding the root causes of underperformance is a necessary prerequisite to the second step, selecting appropriate improvement strategies. Disaggregating academic achievement by student subgroup, school and classroom teacher provides insight into the extent and nature of underperformance. Is the issue rooted in a lack of curriculum alignment across all schools? Is the issue specific to one school or a group of schools? Does the performance of students vary from classroom to classroom? Answering these questions provides direction in the selection of improvement strategies and deciding at what level to implement those strategies.

The improvement planning process in Greenwich is aligned at all three levels of the organization – District, School and Classroom. The District Data Team is concerned with those issues that impact the entire school system and can best be addressed at the district level. The School Data Team examines issues that arise from the student performance data within their school and sets a course for improvement that aligns with district goals and targets. The Instructional Data Team looks at the students within a grade level or program and employs changes in instruction as a

Page 2

means to improved student achievement. At the heart of improvement planning at all levels is a change in adult behavior.

(Greenwich) District Data Team (GDDT) – The Superintendent of Schools leads this team of educators representing schools, programs, and District administration. The GDDT is charged with establishing the goals, targets, and strategies necessary to achieve the Mission and the Vision of the District. Meeting monthly, the GDDT develops, implements, and monitors the District Strategic Improvement Plan. The GDDT is also charged with reviewing and providing feedback to the School Data Teams on their Strategic Improvement Plans in order to ensure alignment with the District.

School Data Team (SDT) - The building Principal leads this team with members representing each of the Instructional Data Teams in the building. This team, meeting monthly, is responsible for reviewing student data for the entire school, isolating the highest priority school-wide goals for improvement, and identifying and implementing the strategies for improving student achievement related to the established goals. Using this information, the SDT creates and monitors the implementation of the school’s Strategic Improvement Plan.

Instructional Data Team (IDT) – IDTs are small groups of teachers organized by grade level or subject area. They meet weekly, or once in the eight-day cycle at the high school, to review formative or benchmark assessments and other data, drilling down into the detailed areas of where students may be struggling as a grade, a class or in small groups. The teachers collaborate on the instructional strategies to use, go back to their classrooms to implement their plan and then return to the IDT to review the results. The conversations are centered on pushing through the data to focus on discussing the effectiveness of their teaching – have their efforts been successful in achieving the desired outcomes for students? If not, why not? If the classroom teachers continue to struggle with improvement in a particular area, they are communicating with their principal and their school data team to determine if other grade levels or programs are struggling as well. Additionally, these teams work together to determine if there is a need for school-wide attention to a given problem area or if a single IDT or teacher needs professional learning support to address the particular area of concern.

Student Assistance Team (SAT) (Response to Intervention (RtI)) - If the classroom teachers determine in their IDT that a particular student continues to struggle, then that student may be referred to the Student Assistance Team made up of building administrators, classroom teachers and support staff – teachers with particular areas of expertise (eg. Literacy specialists, special educators, counselors, ESOL teachers). The Student Assistance Team (SAT) develops plans for supplemental instruction and more frequent progress monitoring based on the individual needs of students referred to this group. Response to Intervention (also known as Scientifically Researched Based Intervention (SRBI)) is a three-tiered model of providing instruction to students, which parallels and supports the GPS Collaboration model. Tier I represents core curricula and instruction. The Instructional Data Teams are responsible for the decision-making and instructional interventions at this level. If one student or a small group of students have been identified as needing Tier II instructional supports, they are referred to the Student Assistance Team. If a student requires more intensive interventions, a plan for Tier III instructional support may be developed. If the data shows that the student continues to struggle (not responsive to

Page 3

interventions) he/she may be referred to an Evaluation Team and may be eligible for special education supports.

Over the summer and early fall of 2011, school staff conducted a thorough analysis of the most recent standardized test scores. Six issues emerged that account for most of the difference in performance between Greenwich and similar districts (see September 1, 2011 Achievement Report):

1. Students new to the District achieve at significantly lower levels than students who have been enrolled continuously for more than three years.

2. Gaps in achievement among student subgroups; most notably the gap in achievement between students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch and their peers who do not qualify for free or reduced price lunch.

3. The recent two year decline in writing scores as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test in grades three through eight.

4. Continued low performance of students in science as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test in grades five and eight and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test in grade ten.

5. Student achievement in reading and mathematics at the end of the primary grades (K-2).

6. While outperforming students in similar districts from grade three to grade eight, the growth in mathematics and reading achievement of Greenwich students is lower from grade five to grade six.

The data teams in the high school, three middle schools and eleven elementary schools account for each of these issues as they develop and revise their School Improvement Plan. Schools are not required to include every issue in their action plan because not all issues are relevant to their building (e.g. the high school plan does not address the grade five to grade six transition) and student performance varies from building to building (e.g. North Mianus has the second highest grade five science scores in the state and does not have to focus on improving science achievement). The schools plans address District issues and issues specific to their building that are impacting student achievement. Where an issue is attributable to the District, such as a need to set standards for classroom instruction, write curriculum or develop benchmark assessments, a plan is developed at the District level. The primary focus of the District plan is to provide the infrastructure that will support improved student achievement.

The District Strategic Improvement Plan (attached) developed in the spring of 2009 and revised at the end of the 2010-2011 school year outlines four major changes in adult behavior:

• Improve classroom instruction.

• Increase professional collaboration around raising student achievement.

• Revise curricula in all subject areas to align with state standards and the District Vision of the Graduate.

Page 4

• Use benchmark assessments in mathematics, language arts and science to monitor student academic progress during the school year.

These changes in adult behavior or adult action indicators were selected for the District plan based on five criteria:

• The impact of the adult action is leveraged in that it contributes to improved student achievement across subject areas and grades.

• The efficacy of the adult actions in improving student achievement is supported by a broad body of educational research (See the November 3, 2011 Achievement Report).

• The adult actions require a substantial change in the way the District educates students.

• The adult actions can be implemented within existing budget constraints.

• The adult actions are appropriate given the role of central office within the Greenwich Public Schools.

Adult actions are implemented through a series of strategies outlined in the 2012-2013 District Action Plan:

Adult Action Strategy

Improve classroom instruction. • Online professional learning on effective teaching strategies.

• Targeted workshops for teachers and administrators on specific teaching indicators.

• Coaching support for administrators (evaluators). • Professional learning for administrators based on the

Instructional Rounds model of clinical supervision.

Increase professional collaboration around raising student achievement.

• Provide training and support to District Data Team, School Data Teams, Instructional Data Teams, and Student Assistance Teams.

• Monitor the implementation of data teams and Student Assistance Teams.

Revise curricula in all subject areas to align with state standards and the District Vision of the Graduate.

• Develop Capstone Projects for grades five, eight and twelve.

• Accelerate implementation of units of study (K-12). • Use curriculum mapping to ensure alignment with state

standards and the vision of the graduate.

Use benchmark assessments in mathematics, language arts and science to monitor student

• Provide teachers with benchmark assessment data in mathematics and language arts.

Page 5

Adult Action Strategy

academic progress during the school year.

• Write and pilot benchmark assessments in Science in grades three through eight.

Responsibility for overseeing each strategy is assigned to District administrators and resources are allocated to implement the strategy. These resources are used to fund staff professional learning and coaching, the writing of curriculum or assessments, materials for piloting curriculum or assessments, software for distributing and sharing materials with professional staff, and the means to collect data on the quality of the implementation of the strategy. How is the effectiveness of the action plan evaluated? Each strategy includes a results indicator that is used to assess the implementation of the strategy. Results indicators focus on changes in what adults do and are measurable, time-bound and specific to each strategy. They range from measures of compliance (attending training) to measures of the degree to which a strategy has resulted in changes in adult behavior (implementing that training in the classroom).

Adult Action Results Indicators (selected)

Improve classroom instruction. • 80% of teachers will be rated at or above expectations on the TEPL indicator rubric specific to their TEPL improvement goal.

• 90% of professional staff will rate professional learning activities related to improving classroom instruction as average or above average.

• 80% of a random sample of formal observations will show improved feedback from evaluators to teachers on cognitive engagement.

• 80% of instructional rounds criteria will show an improvement from baseline as assessed by an outside facilitator.

Increase professional collaboration around raising student achievement.

• 90% of School Data Teams will indicate that professional development was effective on a survey.

• The next multi-year District Strategic Improvement Plan will be developed by the District Data Team, approved by the Board of Education, and communicated to all stakeholders.

• All School Data Teams and Instructional Data Teams will self-report “routine use” of the data team process (CBAM rubric).

• 100% of School Data Teams and Instructional Data

Page 6

Adult Action Results Indicators (selected)

Teams will achieve their data team improvement goal as measured by the Data Team Performance Rubric.

• 80% of randomly sampled student intervention plans will demonstrate appropriate strategies and growth in student achievement.

Revise curricula in all subject areas to align with state standards and the District Vision of the Graduate.

• All secondary schools will pilot a Capstone Assessment (Grade 8 and Grade 12).

• The six Transdisciplinary Units in grades K – 5 will be reviewed and revised.

• Teachers in grades K – 8 will be provided with access to core curriculum maps.

• District curriculum maps will be 100% aligned to state standards.

Use benchmark assessments in mathematics, language arts and science to monitor student academic progress during the school year.

• 100% of mathematics and language arts benchmark data from 2011-2012 will be available to classroom teachers at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year.

• Science benchmark assessments will be developed or reviewed and revised during the summer of 2012.

• 100% of Science benchmark assessment data will be entered into the Data Dashboard during the 2012-2013 school year.

If we select the right strategies and the strategies are faithfully implemented, then student achievement will improve. The primary purpose of the results indicators in the District Action Plan is to assess the implementation of strategies. As we collect more data on changes in adult behavior, we will be able to link those changes to student achievement and confirm the effectiveness of the action plan in terms of raising student achievement.

Page 7

Greenwich Public Schools

Mission, Vision, Values and Beliefs E-000 Page 1of 3

Policy: The District shall provide for a comprehensive educational program for all students. All District operations and resources will be directed toward fulfilling the Mission, Vision, Values, and Beliefs in word, action, policy, and decision-making. Mission:It is the Mission of the Greenwich Public Schools • to educate all students to the highest levels of academic achievement; • to enable them to reach and expand their potential; and • to prepare them to become productive, responsible, ethical, creative and compassionate members of society. Vision:

Vision of the Graduate

The Greenwich Public Schools are committed to preparing students to function effectively in an

interdependent global community. Therefore, in addition to acquiring a core body of

knowledge*, all students will develop their individual capacities to:

o Pose and pursue substantive questions

o Critically interpret, evaluate, and synthesize information

o Explore, define, and solve complex problems

o Communicate effectively for a given purpose

o Advocate for ideas, causes, and actions

o Generate innovative, creative ideas and products

o Collaborate with others to produce a unified work and/or heightened understanding

o Contribute to community through dialogue, service, and/or leadership

o Conduct themselves in an ethical and responsible manner

o Recognize and respect other cultural contexts and points of view

o Pursue their unique interests, passions and curiosities

Page 8

Mission, Values and Beliefs E-000 Page 2 of 3

o Respond to failures and successes with reflection and resilience o Be responsible for their own mental and physical health *The core body of knowledge is established in local curricular documents which reflect national and state standards as well as workplace expectations.

Core Values: “As educators, we value…

A Comprehensive education: we provide our students with a challenging, well-rounded

education that includes the arts, humanities, mathematics, the sciences, technology, and health, and that fosters students’ social and emotional well-being.

High expectations: we hold ourselves and our students to high standards of performance and behavior.

Integrity: we are honest, ethical, and respectful of others, and we foster those traits in our students.

Accountability: we establish clear goals, measure progress, and take responsibility for results, and we teach our students to become responsible, self-motivated learners.

Collaboration: we partner with parents and our diverse community to support our students’ learning, and we teach our students to work cooperatively with others to accomplish goals.

Diversity: we appreciate, respect, and learn from diverse viewpoints, and we teach our students to do the same.

Life-long learning: we challenge ourselves to continue our own professional and personal development, and we strive to instill a love of learning in our students.

The Beliefs of the Greenwich Public Schools are: 1. All children can learn and deserve an education appropriate to their abilities. 2. Schools must set high expectations for every student and staff member. 3. Student achievement must be meaningful and measurable.

4. Students become independent learners by taking initiative, setting challenging

goals for themselves and assessing their progress. 5. Curriculum and instruction should be engaging, meaningful, and challenging in

all disciplines, including academic subjects and the arts. 6. Learning requires a safe and disciplined environment. 7. Education should encourage risk-taking, hard work and perseverance. 8. Learning and achievement build self-esteem. 9. Effective teachers are essential because the fundamental relationship in education

is between teacher and student.

Page 9

Mission, Values and Beliefs E-000 Page 3 of 3

10. Students require the wisdom and guidance of caring adults to thrive and succeed. 11. Students, educators, and families share responsibility for learning.

12. Moral integrity, reliability and respect for others should be fostered and

encouraged in schools as well as in homes. 13. An informed community can provide direction, constructive criticism and

essential support to the school system. 14. Excellent schools require adequate funding and sound management focused on

student learning in all disciplines, including academic subjects and the arts. 15. Physical fitness contributes to optimal student learning.

Rationale: The Greenwich Board of Education is ultimately responsible to the citizens of Greenwich for delivering an excellent education to all students at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. Legal References: Connecticut General Statutes

• 10-15 Towns to maintain schools • 10-15C Discrimination in public schools prohibited.

School attendance by five-year olds • 10-184 Duties of parents • 10-186 Duties of local and regional Boards of Education • 10-220 • 10-226a Pupils of racial minorities • 10-240 • 10-241 • Section 504, U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. @ 794

Policy Adopted: April 28, 2005 Policy Revised: October 23, 2008 Policy Revised: October 20, 2011

Greenwich Public Schools Greenwich, Connecticut

Page 10

District Success System Greenwich Public Schools 2010 - 2011 School Year

�� DRP Reading Gr 2 (Goal) 82% NA �� Students Completing Algebra 1 (8th gr) 53% � �� CMT Reading Gr 3 (Goal) 72% �� Time with Non-Disabled Peers 84% �� CMT Math Gr 5 (Goal) 84% �� !�"�� AP Challenge Index (Tests / Graduate) 2.078 �#$�%�&��'�� CMT Writing Gr 8 (Goal) 78% �(��(��)�� GHS Interscholastic Athletics 51% NA �*�+,�-,�.��/�� CMT Math Growth Gr 3 - 8 (VSS) 142 �� GHS Performing Music 18% NA �01�2��31�� CMT Reading Growth Gr 3 - 8 (VSS) 108 �� CAPT Science Gr 10 (Goal) 63% �45�6�75�8��9�� CAPT Writing Gr 10 (Goal) 82% �%�:��;��<9�� Quality of Instruction (5 point scale) 3.49 NA �"�� SAT Math & Reading Gr 12 (Mean) 1151 �=�>?�@��AB�C� �� Professional Learning (hours / teacher) 30.9 NA �<9�)��D�EF�$�� CMT Reading Gr 3 - 5 (F/R Lunch Goal) 45% )� GH I� C�

Student Achievement: Core Knowledge

Target 2012-2013

Learning:Access and Opportunity

10-11 Result

GPS vs DRG B/A

5 Year Trend

Teaching:Improving Classroom Instruction

10-11 Result

GPS vs DRG B/A

5 Year Trend

Target 2012-2013

10-11 Result

GPS vs DRG B/A

5 Year Trend

Target 2012-2013

The Success System is comprised of thirty-ninemeasures grouped into six areas of performance. The areas consist of student "outcome" measures (left) and "process" measures which drive outcomes (right):• Student�achievement�measures��are�“leveraged�indicators,”�meaning�they�are�good�predictors�of�student�achievement�across�all�subjects�and�grades.

• Colored shapes to the left indicate priority for improvement relative to benchmarked and targeted performance: Circles = high priority, Squares = medium priority and Triangles = low priority.

• The "GPS vs" yellow and green graph benchmarks GPS 2010-2011 performance (black square) comparable districts. Data are displayed from the low district (left edge of bar) to the high district (right edge of bar) with the g ( ) �)�J�GH��

�� CMT Math Gr 6 - 8 (F/R Lunch Goal) 51% �K�LM�N��OP�C�� CMT Reading Gr 3 (Advanced) 27% ��Q��R��SM�T�� CMT Math Gr 5 (Advanced) 53% �U�VW�8��X9�5� �� Per Pupil Expenditures $18,368 �Y�Z[�\]�-,�� CMT Writing Gr 8 (Advanced) 32% �^W�_T�`��45�� Students per Certified Staff Member 9.58 �a��bc�d��eW�� AP Graduates (Score of 3+) 45% �f��g5�h��"�� Teachers per Administrator 13.58 �i�jk�lH�m��[�

�� Elementary Facilities Utilization 86% NA �"�n��o!�p!�W�

�� Foreign Language Gr 5 (Mean) 3.5 NA �q��01�)��=�?�� Visual Arts Gr 5 (Goal) 70% NA �N��rP�st�ut�� Minority Enrollment 28.9% �� Town Leader Satisfaction 7.4 NA �(��)��v�w�xB�B�� Social Studies Research Gr 10 (Goal) 65% NA �yk�z{�)��|�1� Special Education Services 10.4% �� Parent Overall Satisfaction 7.3 �(��m��}[�~[�v�� Physical Fitness Gr 4 (Goal) 74% �� Free / Reduced Lunch 13.2% �� Student Overall Satisfaction 7.5 �(��(��(��)��v�� Physical Fitness Gr 8 (Goal) 58% � " �� C� Non English Home Language 17 7% � Teacher Overall Satisfaction 6 8 st ut " (� ��

Resource Management 10-11 Result

Student Achievement: Skills and Dispositions

10-11 Result

GPS vs SW Conn

5 Year Trend

Target 2012-2013

Demographics

GPS vs DRG B/A

5 Year Trend

Target 2012-2013

10-11 GPS vs DRG B/A

Stakeholder Satisfaction (Harris Survey)

5 Year Trend

Target 2012-2013

10-11 Result

GPS vs Harris

Districts

g ( g g )tick mark representing the mean.

• The “5 Year Trend” line graph depicts 5 year GPS scores. Red dots = 5 year lows, green dots = 5 year highs.

• The “Target 2012-2013” blue toned bullet graph projects whether or not District results (grey horizontal bar) are on track to meet 2012-2013 District improvement targets (black vertical line).

�� Physical Fitness Gr 8 (Goal) 58% ��"�� Non English Home Language 17.7% �� Teacher Overall Satisfaction 6.8 ��u�v�"�� Technology Literacy Gr 5 (100 - 500) 399 NA �� English Language Learners 5.1% �� Parent Satisfaction with Teaching 7.2 �(��)��v�"�(�� Technology Literacy Gr 8 (100 - 500) 321 NA �� Resident Enrollment in GPS 73.1% �� Student Satisfaction with Teaching 7.6 �(��v��

Approved by BOE October 20, 2011Updated October 28, 2011

Page 11

Greenwich Public SchoolsDistrict Data Team

Student Outcome Indicators and Targets by Grade

Grade 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 GPS DRG B SW CT DRG A

2 83% 82% 80% 79% 82% 87% 82%

3 77% 72% 77% 76% 76% 79% 76% 81% 82% 85%

3 73% 71% 72% 76% 72% 75% 72% 76% 79% 83%

3 77% 75% 82% 79% 74% 79% 74% 78% 79% 81%

4 83% 78% 79% 80% 81% 81% 81% 85% 87% 91%

4 48 44 44 47 48 48 48 46 48 50

4 80% 79% 80% 78% 81% 81% 81% 81% 84% 86%

4 34 34 33 30 34 34 34 30 30 28

4 84% 78% 80% 80% 80% 81% 80% 82% 84% 86%

5 83% 84% 83% 87% 84% 86% 84% 89% 89% 93%

5 38 32 36 39 35 36 35 32 32 31

5 81% 82% 82% 80% 78% 83% 78% 81% 83% 86%

5 21 27 23 22 25 27 25 25 24 25

5 83% 80% 85% 84% 84% 85% 84% 84% 84% 86%

5 72% 72% 72% 77% 79% 77% 81% 84% 88%

3 - 5 55% 39% 41% 52% 49% 60% 49% 59%

3 - 5 47% 40% 41% 42% 46% 56% 46% 49%

3 - 5 57% 45% 51% 51% 49% 62% 49% 56%

3 - 5 43% 43% 46% 45% 45% 46% 45% 49% 51% 56%

3 - 5 30% 34% 34% 32% 32% 35% 32% 31% 34% 37%

3 - 5 40% 36% 43% 39% 36% 41% 36% 38% 39% 40%

CMT Writing % at Goal

Data Unavailable

CMT Math % at Goal

12 - 13 District Target

CMT Reading % at Goal

CMT Reading VSS Growth (4 to 5)

Measure

DRP Reading % at Goal

CMT Math % at Goal


CMT Math F/R Lunch at Goal


CMT Math VSS Growth (4 to 5)

CMT Math % at Goal




CMT Writing % at Advanced


CMT Science % at Goal

CMT Writing F/R Lunch at Goal

CMT Math % at Advanced

CMT Reading % at Advanced

Benchmark 10-11District Actual

CMT Reading F/R Lunch at Goal

Goal: Each student will achieve mastery of a core body of knowledge and skills that reflects significant academic growth as measured by-

10-1-11 Page 12




12 - 13 District TargetMeasure



6 79% 78% 84% 83% 82% 86% 82% 88% 89% 93%

6 26 20 23 21 21 27 21 23 22 24

6 81% 79% 84% 89% 87% 86% 87% 91% 91% 94%

6 15 18 20 25 26 25 26 29 28 26

6 78% 75% 81% 79% 77% 81% 77% 83% 84% 87%

7 75% 80% 82% 84% 85% 88% 85% 87% 89% 93%

7 24 21 22 23 24 26 24 20 23 22

7 81% 88% 84% 90% 87% 90% 87% 92% 93% 95%

7 15 23 19 24 18 24 18 16 18 19

7 77% 75% 77% 77% 69% 84% 69% 79% 80% 87%

8 81% 78% 83% 80% 84% 86% 84% 87% 89% 92%

8 20 17 16 19 17 19 17 12 12 12

8 84% 83% 84% 84% 86% 87% 86% 90% 92% 94%

8 14 13 6 16 9 15 9 7 6 6

8 80% 80% 80% 78% 79% 87% 79% 83% 86% 91%

8 75% 75% 74% 76% 83% 76% 84% 86% 90%

6 - 8 40% 41% 55% 49% 50% 62% 50% 63%

6 - 8 46% 52% 53% 61% 62% 62% 62% 70%

6 - 8 41% 41% 50% 44% 42% 55% 42% 53%

6 - 8 48% 46% 50% 52% 54% 52% 54% 54% 58% 63%

6 - 8 37% 39% 41% 49% 49% 43% 49% 50% 53% 57%

6 - 8 37% 31% 36% 39% 33% 40% 33% 41% 42% 47%

CMT Math % at Goal




CMT Reading F/R at Goal

CMT Math % at Goal



CMT Math % at Goal

CMT Science % at Goal




CMT Math F/R at Goal

CMT Math % at Advanced

CMT Writing F/R at Goal

CMT Reading % at Advanced

CMT Writing % at Advanced





10-1-11 Page 13




12 - 13 District TargetMeasure



10 71% 68% 70% 71% 72% 77% 72% 73% 80% 87%

10 71% 61% 71% 66% 67% 72% 67% 69% 75% 83%

10 77% 79% 79% 81% 82% 81% 82% 83% 87% 91%

10 62% 53% 62% 64% 63% 71% 63% 71% 73% 78%

10 23% 25% 28% 42% 37% 45% 37% 37%

10 33% 19% 40% 27% 28% 42% 28% 34%

10 36% 56% 50% 56% 46% 57% 46% 58%

10 22% 13% 21% 28% 16% 35% 16% 38%

10 43% 34% 38% 39% 39% 47% 39% 39% 47% 53%

10 41% 28% 39% 33% 34% 42% 34% 37% 43% 50%

10 44% 42% 46% 48% 54% 46% 54% 54% 60% 66%

10 34% 27% 34% 37% 36% 43% 36% 43% 45% 50%

12 564 578 592 578 585 591 585 NA NA NA

12 558 562 569 556 566 576 566 NA NA NA

12 563 571 577 567 579 587 579 NA NA NA

CAPT Reading % at Advanced

SAT 1 Reading Mean Score

SAT 1 Writing Mean Score

CAPT Math % at Goal

CAPT Math % at Advanced

CAPT Writing % at Goal

CAPT Science % at Goal

CAPT Reading FR at Goal

SAT 1 Math Mean Score

CAPT Writing % at Advanced

CAPT Science % at Advanced

CAPT Writing FR at Goal

CAPT Science FR at Goal

CAPT Math FR at Goal

CAPT Reading % at Goal

10-1-11 Page 14




4 52% 60% 54% 72% 74% 65% 74% 61% 69% 69%

5 82% 77% 80% 80% 70% 85% 70%

5 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.3 3.5 4.2 3.5

5 399 410 399 305

6 51% 43% 37% 65% 60% 55% 60% 63% 70% 69%

8 48% 49% 37% 65% 58% 55% 58% 63% 67% 67%

8 40% 48% 54% 49% 53% 55% 53% 46% 59% 65%

8 321 350 321 269

9 - 12 38% 51% 51% 51% 51% 50% 51%

9 - 12 22% 23% 22% 20% 18% 27% 18%

10 51% 59% 64% 74% 66% 65% 66% 49% 49% 48%

10 55% 58% 68% 54% 65% 63% 65%

12 39% 43% 42% 37% 45% 45% 45% 35% 45% 48%

Global Scale Score

Foreign Language Gr 5 (SOPA) Data Unavailable

Graduates with AP Score 3+

Social Studies Research at Goal Data Unavailable

Technology Skills Scaled Score

Completion of Algebra I

11 - 12 District Target

Benchmark 10-11

Measure

Physical Fitness at Goal


Data Unavailable


Interscholastic Athletic Participation

Data Unavailable

Data Unavailable


Performing Music Participation

Technology Skills Scaled Score Global Scale Score

Visual Arts Assessment at Goal

Goal: Each student will demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to effectively function in an interdependent global community as measured by-

10-1-11 Page 15


District Action Plan

Adult Action Indicator: The GPS will implement and monitor a new Teacher Evaluation Plan at all levels.

Fiscal Impact and Funding Source

Strategies Timeline 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Person(s)

Responsible Results Indicators

On-line Training – The district will collaborate with

PhocuseD on Learning to develop on-line professional

learning opportunities for certified staff on discrete

strategies related to one of the TEPL indicators. The

indicator will be chosen from data collected from End

of Year Evaluations.

Summer,

2012

development

Courses

available

Sept, 2012

$35,000 in

236

Deputy

Superintendent

80% of the teachers will be rated at or

above Meets Expectations, when

administrators use the appropriate

TEPL Indicator rubric to evaluate the

written plan and reflection submitted by

teachers who have completed on-line

training in January, 2013 and again in

June, 2013.

Teacher and Administrator PLAs on TEPL

Indicators –Data from teacher evaluations at the end

of 11-12 will identify the top 2 TEPL indicators that

were designated as professional learning goals for 12-

13. Two workshop series (3 sessions each) will be

developed and offered to teachers and administrators

three times during the school year.

Summer,

2012

development

Courses

available

Fall, Winter,

Spring of

12-13

$10,000 in

149

Assistant

Superintendent

for CIPL

90% of the teachers and administrators

completing an EZ TRAXX evaluation

of the TEPL professional learning will

rate the following categories as average

or above: Objectives were met;

Usefulness of information; and

Relevance to their role.

Coaching Support for Administrators – Building

administrators will participate in coaching sessions

conducted by an outside consultant, Dr. Todd White.

These sessions will focus on cognitive engagement

and include informal classroom observations and

modeling of effective feedback. (1 day each for each

elementary and middle school; 3 days at the HS)

To be

scheduled

by each

school

during the

summer of

2012 for

implementat

ion in 12-13.

$32,000 in

149

Deputy

Superintendent

80% of a random sample of formal

observations reviewed by Leadership

Council will show improved feedback

to teachers on cognitive engagement

from fall 2012 baseline to spring 2013,

using the cognitive engagement rubric.

Instructional Rounds - All administrators will take

part in professional learning based on Harvard process

of Instructional Rounds which includes two school

visits each during the 12-13 school year. An outside

consultant from Harvard will observe a Rounds visit in

January in order to provide feedback; returning in

April to provide additional feedback.

January,

2013 and

April 2013

$25,000 in

149

Deputy

Superintendent

80% of the Instructional Rounds

elements will show improvement from

baseline visit in January 2013 to April

2013 as evaluated by the Harvard

Facilitator using effective Instructional

Rounds criteria.

Page 16

Greenwich Public Schools District Action Plan

Adult Action Indicator: Build capacity within the school system to collaborate around student data and student needs through District, School and Instructional Data Teams and Student Assistance Teams (e.g. SAT, PRT)


Strategies Timeline 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Person(s) Responsible Results Indicators

• Provide ongoing support and training to District, School and Instructional Data Teams, based on the identified needs of each.

2012-13 $32,000 Line 149, Program 70

Asst. Supt. CIPL • 100% of schools participate in professional development tailored to support their SDT/IDT needs.

• 90% of SDTs indicate that PD was effective on PD survey

• Refine/Clarify District Data Team planning process for the development of the next multi-year DSIP - Develop Mechanisms for Sharing Best Practices - Refine Improvement Planning Cycle &

communicate to stakeholders

By Dec. ‘12

By Dec. ‘12

Collaboration Subcommittee

• Next Multi-year DSIP will be completed, approved by BOE and communicated to all stakeholders

• Mechanisms are established and utilized Improvement Planning Cycle will be revised and distributed to all stakeholders by December 2012

• Monitor the implementation of School Data Teams By June ‘13 Deputy Superintendent

• By June 2013 all SDTs will self-report a level of use of 5 or higher on CBAM

• 100% of SDTs will achieve their data team implementation improvement goal as assessed by the SDT Standards Rubric by June 2013

• Monitor the implementation of Instructional Data Teams.

By June ‘13 SDT/Building Leader

• 100% of IDTs will achieve their data team implementation improvement goal as assessed by the IDT Performance Rubric by June 2013

• Provide ongoing support and training to Student Assistance Teams based on identified needs from each level (elementary, middle, GHS).

2012-13 $15,000 Program 68

Rdg./LA & Sped. Coordinators; RtI

Coaches

• 100% of schools SATs participate in professional development tailored to support their needs.

• 90% of SATs indicate that PD was effective on PD survey

• Continue to develop school-based capacity for utilizing RtI Studio to progress-monitor individual and group intervention plans (Tiers II/III).

By June ‘13 Rdg./LA & Sped. Coordinators; RtI

Coaches

• 100% of Tier III intervention plans will be entered into RtI Studio

• 80 % of randomly sampled intervention plans demonstrate appropriate growth

Page 17

Greenwich Public Schools District Action Plan

Adult Action Indicator: Create and implement curricula in all subject areas that are vertically and horizontally aligned to state standards and the Vision of the Graduate.


Strategies Timeline 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Person(s) Responsible Results Indicators

Develop Capstone Projects for Grades 5,8,12. • Pilot 12th grade Capstone Project • Pilot 8th grade Mini-Capstone Project • Develop Draft of 5th grade Mini-Capstone

Project

2012-2013 2012-2013 2012-2013

$10,000 (A620177051310) $5000 (A620177052020) $2000 (A620177053100)

Asst. Supt. Of CIPL Sub-committee chairs (Lorraine Termini, Jarret Pepe, and Kim Beck)

• All secondary level schools will implement a pilot Capstone/Mini-Capstone Project for 8th and 12th graders

• Completed draft of 5th grade Mini-Capstone project

• Survey a subgroup of 8th and 12th graders to assess specific components of the Capstone Project

Accelerate Implementation of Transdisciplinary assured experiences and units of study (K-12).

• Revisions, if needed, for the second unit for

K-5 grades

2012-2013 $15,000 (A620177051390)

Asst. Supt. Of CIPL

Curriculum

Coordinators

• 6 out of 6 (K-5) Transdisciplinary Units will be reviewed and refined if needed

Map all curricula to ensure vertical and horizontal alignment K-12 to state standards and the Vision of the Graduate. • Align objectives to standards • Ongoing monitoring of core maps to assess

for gaps, repetitions, and interdisciplinary opportunities

• Conduct professional learning for principals and teachers regarding use of the tool and implementation in IDTs.

• Use data to provide recommendations for curriculum updates, develop balanced

2012-2013

$15,000 (A620177051390) $15,000 (A620177052360)

Asst. Supt. Of CIPL

Curriculum

Coordinators

• Additional completed electronic maps

• Teachers K-8 will be provided access to view core maps.

• Data from the curriculum mapping system will highlight a 50% increase in usage and 100% alignment to state standards

Page 18


District Action Plan

Adult Action Indicator: Design and Implement Common Benchmarks Assessments in Math, Reading /Language Arts, English and Science


Strategies Timeline 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Person(s)

Responsible Results Indicators

Language Arts / English benchmark data collected

during the 2011-2012 school year available to

teachers and administrators at the beginning of

2012-2013 school year.

Sep 2012 None

Coordinator,

House

Administrator

(English)

100% of K-12 benchmark data available

to classroom teachers and

administrators through Data Dashboard

Mathematics benchmark data collected during the

2011-2012 school year available to teachers and

administrators at the beginning of 2012-2013 school

year.

Sep 2012 None

Coordinator,

House

Administrator

(Mathematics)

100% of 1-12 benchmark data available

to classroom teachers and

administrators through Data Dashboard

Review and revise Science benchmark assessments

K-10.

Summer

2012

$33,250 (A6201734 139) $7000 (A6201734 149)

Coordinator,

Program

Administrator

(Science)

Review and revise benchmark

assessments piloted during the 2011-

2012 school year.

Complete remaining assessments K-10

Implement Science benchmark assessments K-10 Sep 2012 –

Jun 2013 None

Coordinator,

Program

Administrator

(Science)

Administer K-10 benchmark

assessments

Enter 100% of benchmark assessment

data into Data Dashboard

Page 19


Data Teams

Roles and Responsibilities

Board of Education:

Develop Mission & Vision

Success System

District Data Team:

Develop Goals and

Student Outcome

Indicators that are

aligned to Mission

District Data Team:

Develop district action

plan & results

indicators supporting

school improvement

BOE Budget Approval (Fall) & Monthly

Updates (Supt at BOE Meetings)

School Data Teams:

Set school targets for

District Student

Outcome Indicators

(may add additional

indicators)

Annual Progress Report (Sep) &

BOE Approval of Revisions (Jun)

GDDT annual review & approval

of school targets(Fall)

Monthly District Data

Team meetings to

monitor progress

School Data Teams:

Identify leveraged

improvement

strategies, develop

school

action plan & results

indicators

GDDT annual review & approval

of school action plans (Fall)

Monthly School Data

Team meetings to

monitor progress

School Data Teams:

Based on

disaggregated data,

identify improvement

objectives by grade

level or course

Monthly School Data

Team meetings to

monitor progress

Instructional Data Teams:

Use district benchmark

assessments & develop

common formative

assessments aligned to

improvement objectives

Instructional Data Teams:

Identify leveraged

instructional strategies &

develop classroom

action plan

Weekly Instructional Data

Team meetings to monitor

progress

School Data Teams set improvement

objectives annually (Fall)

School Data Team

provides technical

support and guidance

as needed

Student Outcomes Adult Actions Page 20

DISTRICT STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012-13...The District has developed a one-year Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of DISTRICT STRATEGIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2012-13...The District has developed a one-year Strategic...