Not on Improvement Accredited---ALERT Traditional Year 1 ... · CDE Improvement Planning Template...

CDE Improvement Planning Template for Schools (Version 1.3 -- Last updated: September 16, 2010) 1

SCHOOL: West Intergenerational Center

NCLB School Improvement Status Accreditation Status School Status Not on Improvement Accredited---ALERT Traditional Year 1 Accredited—Accreditation Watch School-wide Year 2 Accredited—Accreditation Probation Technical Assistance Tier I Corrective Action Non-accredited Technical Assistance Tier II Restructuring Technical Assistance Tier III

School Improvement Planning Team: Signatures of people who were involved in the preparation of the plan. Parents must be included.

Building Advisory Accountability Committee: To be completed by the Title I/Operations office:

Name Position

1) Date the Plan was presented to SAC for review: Date received in Title I/Operations office:

2) Signature of Principal: Date the Plan was reviewed:

3) Signature of SAC Chairperson: Members of the Review Team:

4) Signatures of SAC members:

Date of Plan Approval:

Signature of Title I/School-wide Director:


Section II: Improvement Plan Information

Directions: This section should be completed by the school or district. Additional Information about the School

Improvement Plan Information

The school is submitting this improvement plan to satisfy requirements for (check all that apply): State Accountability Title IA Tiered Intervention Grant School Improvement Grant Other: ________________

Comprehensive Review and Selected Grant History

Related Grant Awards Did the school receive a Tiered Intervention grant? Indicate the intervention approach.

Turnaround Restart Transformation Closure

Has the school received a School Improvement grant? When was the grant awarded?

School Support Team or Expedited Review Has (or will) the school participated in an SST review or Expedited Review? When?

External Evaluator Has the school partnered with an external evaluator to provide comprehensive evaluation? Indicate the year and the name of the provider/tool used.

School Contact Information (Additional contacts may be added, if needed)

1 Name and Title Clay P. Gomez, principal

Email [email protected]

Phone (719) 328 - 3902 Mailing Address 1920 West Pikes peak, Colorado Springs, CO 80904(719) 328 - 3907

2 Name and Title Katie Flemate, counselor-coordinator Email [email protected]

Phone (719) 328 - 3907

Mailing Address 1920 West Pikes peak, Colorado Springs, CO 80904(719) 328 - 3907


Section III: Narrative on Data Analysis and Root Cause Identification

This section corresponds with the “evaluate” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. Provide a narrative that examines the data for your school – especially in any areas where the school was identified for accountability purposes. To help you construct this narrative, this section has been broken down into four steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data, (2) Analyze trends in the data and identify priority needs, (3) Determine the root causes of those identified needs, and (4) Create the narrative. Step One: Gather and Organize Relevant Data The planning team must gather data from a variety of sources to inform the planning process. For this process, schools are required to pull specific performance reports and are expected to supplement their analysis with local data to help explain the performance data. The team will need to include three years of data to conduct a trend analysis in step two.

Required reports. At a minimum, the school is expected to reference the key data sources posted on SchoolView (www.schoolview.org/SchoolPerformance/ index.asp), including: (1) School Performance Framework Report, (2) Growth Summary Report, (3) AYP Summaries (including detailed reports in reading and math for each subpopulation of students), and (4) Post Secondary Readiness data.

Suggested data sources. Furthermore, it is assumed that more detailed data is available at the school/district level to provide additional context and deepen the analysis. Some recommended sources may include:

Student Learning Local Demographic Data School Processes Data Perception Data

Local outcome and interim assessments

Student work samples Classroom

assessments (type and frequency)

School locale and size of student population Student characteristics, including poverty,

language proficiency, IEP, migrant, race/ethnicity

Student mobility rates Staff characteristics (e.g., experience,

attendance, turnover) List of schools and feeder patterns Student attendance Discipline referrals and suspension rates

Comprehensive evaluations of the school (e.g., SST) Curriculum and instructional materials Instruction (time and consistency among grade levels) Academic interventions available to students Schedules and class sizes Family/community involvement policies/practices Professional development structure Services and/or programs (Title I, special ed, ESL) Extended day or summer programs

Teaching and learning conditions surveys (e.g., TELL Colorado)

Any perception survey data (e.g., parents, students, teachers, community, school leaders)

Self-assessment tools (district and/or school level)

Step Two: Analyze Trends in the Data and Identify Priority Needs Using at least three years of data, the team should begin by identifying positive and negative trends in each of the key performance indicators (i.e., academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps, post secondary readiness). The summary provided in Part I of this template (pp. 1-2) will provide some clues on content areas, grade levels and disaggregated groups where the school needs to focus its attention. Local data (suggestions provided above) should


also be included – especially in grade levels and subject areas not included in state testing. Next, the team should share observations of its strengths on which it can build, and identify areas of need. Finally, those needs should be prioritized. At least one priority need must be identified for every performance indicator for which school performance did not at least meet state and/or federal expectations. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below. Step Three: Root Cause Analysis This step is focused on examining the underlying cause of the priority needs identified in step two. A cause is a “root cause” if: (1) the problem would not have occurred if the cause had not been present, (2) the problem will not reoccur if the cause is dissolved and (3) correction of the cause will not lead to the same or similar problems (Preuss, 2003). Finally, the school should have control over the proposed solution – or the means to implement the solution. Remember to verify the root cause with multiple data sources. These efforts should be documented in the Data Analysis Worksheet below. Data Analysis Worksheet Directions: This chart will help you record and organize your observations about your school level data for the required data analysis narrative. You are encouraged to conduct a more comprehensive analysis by examining all of the performance indicators. – at a minimum, you must address the performance indicators for the targets that were not met for accountability purposes. Ultimately, your analysis will guide the major improvement strategies you choose in section IV. You may add rows, as necessary.

Performance Indicators

Description of Significant Trends (3 years of past data) Priority Needs Root Causes

Academic Achievement (Status)

CSAP 2008: 6th P&A Reading: 69% 2009 70% 2010 57% CSAP 2008: 7th P&A Reading: 77% 2009 66% 2010 67% CSAP 2008: 8th P&A Reading: 67% 2009 73% 2010 60%

Hispanic, ELL, and IEP students

Insufficient rigorous, engaging instruction, and use of best practice strategies with Hispanic, ELL, and IEP students

CSAP 2008: 6th P&A Writing: 53% 2009 53% 2010 39%




CSAP 2008: 7th P&A Writing: 60% 2009 50% 2010 53% CSAP 2008: 8th P&A Writing: 51% 2009 55% 2010 43%



CSAP 2008: 6th P&A Math: 50% 2009 54% 2010 37% CSAP 2008 7th P&A Math: 49% 2009 48% 2010 45% CSAP 2008 8th P&A Math: 46% 2009 54% 2010 39%



CSAP 2008 8th P&A Science: 42% 2009 58% 2010 40%

Hispanic, ELL, and IEP students Insufficient rigorous, engaging instruction, and use of best

practice strategies with Hispanic, ELL, and IEP students

Achievement rose or remained stable in 7 of 10 areas in 2009, with the greatest gains being seen in reading, writing, and science.

Quality, rigorous instruction with appropriate differentiation.

Limited time in PLCs to engage in reflective practice and strategizing regarding consistent use of learner-centered best practices.

Academic Growth Achievement fell in 8 of 10 areas in 2010, with the greatest losses coming in reading and science.

New master schedule to allow more time in content area classes

Inadequate time allocated to content area instruction. School was also restructured in 2009 – 2010, from a middle school to a combined PK-5, 6 – 8 shared campus.


Gaps exist between Hispanic and white populations, ranging from 35% gap in 7th grade writing to a 37% gap in 8th grade writing.

Continue focus on creating culturally relevant classrooms

Insufficient focus upon the needs of Hispanic learners

Academic Growth Gaps

Greatest gaps exist between students w/IEPs, and mainstream students.

More consistent use of differentiation strategies

Lack of adequate differentiation within most classrooms for students with disabilities.

Post Secondary Readiness

N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Preuss, P. G. (2003). School Leader's Guide to Root Cause Analysis: Using Data to Dissolve Problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education


Step 4: Create the Data Narrative Directions: Blend the work that you have done in the previous three steps: (1) Gather and organize relevant data, (2) Analyze trends in the data and identify priority needs, and (3) Determine the root causes of those identified needs. The narrative should not take more than five pages. Consider the questions below as you write your narrative. Data Narrative for School Trend Analysis and Priority Needs: On which performance indicators is our school trending positively? On which performance indicators is our school trending negatively? Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups, e.g., by grade level or gender? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school?

Root Cause Analysis: Why do we think our school’s performance is what it is?

Verification of Root Cause: What evidence do you have for your conclusions?

Trend Analysis and Priority Needs: On which performance indicators is our school trending positively? On which performance indicators is our school trending negatively? Does this differ for any disaggregated student groups, e.g., by grade level or gender? What performance challenges are the highest priorities for our school? Narrative: Over the last three years, West Middle School has reflected variable trend data at all grade levels. At 6th grade, year-to-year results indicate alternating patterns of growth and deficit in the area of reading (69% P&A 2008, 70% P&A in 2009, and a 13% drop in P&A (57%) for 2010. Sixth grade writing, stable for two years (53% P & A), suffered a drop in 2010, to 39% P&A. In math, 6th grade students, relatively stable for the previous two years, took a 17% drop in levels of P&A in 2010 (50% 2008, 54% 2009, 37% 2010). For 2010, the drop in 6th grade reading, while significant, was an improvement on the cohort’s scores from where they were at 5th graders, when there was a 45% P&A rate. Factors particular to the 6th grade and contributing to the data above include 3 retirements in 3 years (two in math, one in language arts). For AY 2008 – 2009 and AY2009 – 2010, staffing levels (reduced each year since 2007) forced reducing the 6th grade team to 3 teachers instead of 4. At the 7th grade level, where scores in reading had been at a high of 77% P&A in 2008, West 7th graders fell to 66% P&A in 2009 and came up incrementally to 67% P&A in 2010. In writing, where West 7th graders were at 60% P&A in 2008, a drop of 10 percentage points was seen in 2009 and some of that ground has been made up in 2010 with 53% of students scoring P&A. Math scores fell incrementally in 2009, down from 49% P&A in 2008 to 48% P&A. We saw a drop of 3 percentage points more in 2010. In math at 7th grade there has been some instability, where we now have the 3rd math teacher in place in 4 years. In 8th grade, after seeing a significant increase in 2009 with 73% P&A (up 6 percentage points from 2008) in reading, we witness a 13 point drop in scores in 2010 to 60% P&A. Writing saw inconsistent trend data, from 51% P&A in 2008 to 55% P&A in 2009, and then a 12 point loss in 2010 to 43% P&A. A similar trend in math was seen, with 46% P&A in 2008, up 8 percentage points in 2009 (54% P&A), and then a drop to 39% P&A in 2010. Eighth grade science, where enormous gains were seen in 2009 (58 % P&A, up from 42% P&A in 2008), fell to 40% P&A in 2010. Possible factors at 8th grade contributing to the trends noted include instability in math, with three teachers in three years, one of whom was on alternative licensure. In language arts, staffing conditions made necessary a move of one staff member from social studies into the language arts position, which the staff member had not taught for a number of years. Root cause analysis revealed that our focus at West needed to be addressed. Specifically, the staff, working with the District 11 Achieve team, determined that, whereas there are pockets of excellence with certain teachers in certain subject areas, this is not sufficient to keep sustained growth going throughout the building. Therefore, the staff has determined that we need to see more consistency on terms of some common, accepted, and implemented best practice strategies that are research based and results driven. Across all content areas, those best practices are as follows:


Goal teams (PLCs) to meet twice a month for work on common strategies, questioning practices, and to review data regularly and to have that data drive their practice.

There will be common, consistent practices in implementing a common, school-wide approach to vocabulary instruction.

A commitment to bell-to-bell instruction, with “bell ringers” starting the period as soon as students come into the room, and finishing class with some form of exit slip to check for understanding at the end of classes.

In each of the other two core academic areas (science and social studies), they will also have one or two common strategies that all teachers within those content areas will implement.

Accountability to steps noted above will be shared by the principal, LRT, and math coach in terms of ensuring that the best practices are in place throughout the school and across the curriculum, as measured through walkthrough observations, formal/informal teacher evaluations, and by independent confirmation from the District 11 Achieve Team. Tell the story of your data based on the Data Narrative Questions (pink handout).

Section IV: Action Plan(s)

This section focuses on the “plan” portion of the continuous improvement cycle. First you will identify your annual targets and the interim measures. This will be documented in the School Goals Worksheet. Then you will move into the action plans, where you will use the action planning worksheet. School Goals Worksheet Directions: Complete the worksheet for the priority needs identified in section III; although, all schools are encouraged to set targets for all performance indicators. Annual targets for AYP have already been determined by the state and may be viewed on the CDE website at: www.cde.state.co.us/FedPrograms/AYP/prof.asp#table. Safe Harbor and Matched Safe Harbor goals may be used instead of performance targets. For state accountability, schools are expected to set their own annual targets for academic achievement, academic growth, academic growth gaps and post secondary readiness. Once annual targets are established, then the school must identify interim measures that will be used to monitor progress toward the annual targets at least twice during the school year. Make sure to include interim targets for disaggregated groups that were identified as


needing additional attention in section III (data analysis and root cause analysis). Finally, list the major strategies that will enable the school to meet those targets. The major improvement strategies will be detailed in the action planning worksheet below.

Performance Indicators

Measures/ Metrics

Annual Targets Interim Measures for 2010-11

Major Improvement Strategies 2010-11 2011-12

Academic Achievement

(Status)

CSAP, CSAPA, Lectura, Escritura

R Percent Proficient and Advanced will be at or above the state 50th percentile

Percent Proficient and Advanced will be at or above the state 50th percentile

NWEA Maps Assessments (administered 3 times during the year). Fall-spring RIT growth in reading, with goal of meeting or exceeding NWEA growth targets for all grades and disaggregated student groups.

See strategies under Action Planning Worksheet, goals 1, 2, and 3

M Percent Proficient and Advanced will be at or above the state 50th percentile


NWEA Maps Assessments (administered 3 times during the year). Fall-spring RIT growth in math, with goal of meeting or exceeding NWEA growth targets for all grades and disaggregated student groups.


W Percent Proficient and Advanced will be at or above the state 50th percentile


NWEA Maps Assessments (administered 2 times during the year). Fall-spring RIT growth in language usage, with goal of meeting or exceeding NWEA growth targets for all grades and disaggregated student groups.


S Percent Proficient and Advanced will be at or above the state 50th percentile



AYP (Overall and for each disaggregated groups)

R

93.41% of all students and of each disaggregated group will be PP and above OR will show a 10% reduction in percent of students scoring non-proficient.





M





Academic Growth

Median Student Growth Percentile

R Observed growth will meet or exceed adequate growth

Observed growth will meet or exceed adequate growth



M Observed growth will meet or exceed adequate growth




W Observed growth will meet or exceed adequate growth




Academic Growth Gaps

Median Student Growth Percentile

R

There will be 5 percentage points or less gap between each disaggregated sub-group with an N of 30 students or more




M






W





Post Secondary & Workforce Readiness

Graduation Rate At or above 80%

At or above 80%

Monitoring of high risk groups Continue interventions at school level

Dropout Rate At or below the state average

At or below the state average

Monitoring of high risk groups Continue interventions at school level

Mean ACT At or above the state average

At or above the state average

Document that students are receiving instruction in content prior to test

Curriculum alignment

Action Planning Worksheet Directions: Based on your data analysis in section III, prioritize the root causes that you will address through your action plans and then identify a major improvement strategy(s). For each major improvement strategy (e.g., differentiate reading instruction in grades 3-5) identify the root cause(s) that the action steps will help to dissolve. Then indicate which accountability provision or grant opportunity it will address. In the chart, provide details on key action steps (e.g., re-evaluating supplemental reading materials, providing new professional development and coaching to school staff) necessary to implement the major improvement strategy. Details should include a description of the action steps, a general timeline, resources that will be used to implement the actions and implementation benchmarks. Implementation benchmarks provide the school with checkpoints to ensure that activities are being implemented as expected. If the school is identified for improvement/corrective action/restructuring under Title I (see pre-populated report on p. 2), action steps should include family/community engagement strategies and professional development (including mentoring) as they are specifically required by ESEA. Add rows in the chart, as needed. While space has been provided for three major improvement strategies, the school may add other major strategies, as needed. Major Improvement Goal #1: Top Quality Tier 1 instruction for every student, every day, in every classroom through differentiated instruction as evidenced by: Strategy: At West Middle School, content area teams will participate in bi-monthly strategic planning (effective PLCs) to determine /clarify/ develop 3- 5 content agreements that all teachers in that content area will implement each day. Effective delivery of instruction by :


School wide; Common academic vocabulary necessary for standardized assessments through interactive word walls Reading: Common content specific vocabulary bell to bell Wrting: Common content specific vocabulary bell to bell Math: Common content specific Vocabulary bell to bell

Root Cause(s) Addressed: Root cause analysis revealed that a systemic change throughout the middle school was in order, due to a lack of rigorous, engaging instruction, and use of best practice strategies. Instructional time in content areas has been limited to 45 minutes in order to make room for multiple intervention classes, also 45 minutes in length. Longitudinal data suggests that this strategy has proven ineffective. Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):

School Plan under State Accountability Title IA School Improvement/Corrective Action Plan Application for a Tiered Intervention Grant Title I school-wide or targeted assistance plan requirements School Improvement Grant

Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Timeline Key Personnel*

Resources (Amount and Source:

federal, state, and/or local) Implementation Benchmarks

Common (CSAP) Vocabulary instruction and support; Content specific vocabulary terms

September– May, 2010

Clay Gomez, Principal; Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8 academic core teachers

Posters distributed school wide with common vocabulary (local)

Bi-weekly PLC meetings

The master schedule will be redesigned for 2nd semester to allow for core content areas to increase instructional time from 45 minutes to 53 minutes in all classes.

January– May, 2010

Clay Gomez, Principal; Katie Flemate, counselor-coordinator Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8 language arts teachers, academic core teachers; Karen Newyton, Math Coach

Counselor-Coordinator, LRT, Principal,West Leadership team, ZANGLE scheduling (local)

New, 7 period day schedule in place by January 2011

WRITING STRATEGY: At West Middle School language arts teachers will provide ongoing feedback to students throughout the writing process.


Clay Gomez, Principal; Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8 language arts teachers,

Writer’s Workshoop training (local)

Bi-weekly PLC meetings, departmental planning days

Step 1: Provision of school-wide writing prompts through language arts classes (followed by department


Clay Gomez, Principal; Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8

Teacher-developed prompts (local)



anchoring of papers w/common scoring) language arts teachers

Step 2 : All language arts teachers are using the CDE 11-point rubric to score all modes of writing.

October– May, 2010

Clay Gomez, Principal; Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8 language arts teachers, academic core teachers

CSAP rubric (state) Bi-weekly PLC meetings, departmental planning days

Step 3: Language arts teachers conference with individual students.


Clay Gomez, Principal; Tricia Elliott, LRT; 6 – 8 language arts teachers

Class time (local) Bi-weekly PLC meetings

MATH STRATEGY a) At West Middle School, content area teams will participate in bi-monthly strategic planning to determine / clarify / develop 3- 5 content agreements that all teachers in that content area will implement each day.


Clay Gomez, Principal; Karen Newton, Math coach; Phil Hutcherson, math dept. chairperson; math teachers

Planning time (local) Bi-weekly PLC meetings

Step 1 Bell – to – bell instruction as evidenced by “bell-ringer” activity and closure activity (exit slip, etc.) each class.



Teacher created “bell ringers” and/or exit slips (local)


Step 2 Daily monitored practice with corrective feedback



Classroom teacher (local)


Step 3 Daily Closure/Lesson summary October– May, 2010




Step 4 Every day applications for concepts being taught


Clay Gomez, Principal; Karen Newton, Math coach;




Phil Hutcherson, math dept. chairperson; math teachers

* Not required for state or federal requirements. Completion of the “Key Personnel” column is optional for schools.


Middle School Implementation and Performance Data

Organization Code: District Name: Colorado Springs School District 11 School Code: School Name: West Intergenerational Center GOAL #1. Top Quality Tier 1 Instruction Strategy: Top Quality Tier 1 instruction for every student, every day, in every classroom through differentiated instruction as evidenced by:

1) New master schedule by second semester increasing class instructional time from 45 to 53 minutes 2) Language arts: teachers will provide ongoing feedback to students throughout the writing process. 3) Math: Daily monitored practice with corrective feedback

Implementation (% of Classrooms)

MAP Performance Fall Winter Spring Oct Feb May

January 15 March 18 April 8

Common Vocab.Posted

80% 71.4% 100% RE 48.72% 53.93%

Common Vocab. Used

40% 42.8% 95%

Guided Practice

75% 76.1% 66.6% MA 39.93% 41.07%


W/Feedback

Bell-to-Bell Instruction

90% 90.4% 100% LA 48.16% 49.10%

Major Improvement Goal #2: Quality Tier 2 & 3 instruction with fidelity as defined by research and evidenced by time, intensity and duration as evidenced by (strategy): Strategy: Every day, all students below proficient (U/PP) will receive additional research-based instruction in their area of need as measured by (data, walkthroughs, attendance, SM time on program) Root Cause(s) Addressed: Root cause analysis revealed that a systemic change throughout the middle school was in order. Students were limited to 45 minutes in core classes, thereby depriving students of longer instructional period. Intervention/tutorial classes have met with varying levels of success/failure, due chiefly to lack of intentional, reflective, best practice strategies and interventions. Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):


Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Timeline Key Personnel

Resources

(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)

Implementation Benchmarks

READING

Beginning first quarter, all students at West Middle School will participate in daily, measurable interventions / enrichments.

Clay Gomez, Principal, Tricia Elliott, LRT Marti Gilardino, Tutor

District tutoring funds (local) Master Schedule

Step 1 Tutorial classes, implemented with fidelity August – April, Marti Gilardino District tutoring funds (local) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle


2010 -2011 assessments

WRITING

Beginning first quarter, all students at West Middle School will participate in daily, measurable interventions / enrichments.

Tricia Elliott, LRT Marti Gilardino, Tutor


Step 1 Tutorial classes, implemented with fidelity August – April, 2010 -2011

Marti Gilardino, Tutor

District tutpring funds (local) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle assessments

Language! with ELL students August – May 2010- 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; Tammy Luviano, ELL teacher

Language! materials (local) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle assessments

Steo 2 Small group pull out – students receive instruction in mainstream; as necessary, small groups of students are pulled out for additional assistance.

August – May 2010 - 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; Larilou Shaw, Sp. Ed. dept. chair

Sp. Ed. aides & teachers (local)

Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle assessments

MATH

Beginning second quarter, all students at West Middle School will participate in daily, measurable interventions / enrichments.

Karen Newton, Math Coach Sheila Allison, Tutor



Step 1 Tutorial classes, implemented with fidelity. Successmaker Math will comprise one element of this tutorial time

September – April, 2010 - 2011

Karen Newton, Math Coach Sheila Allison, Tutor

District tutoring funds (local) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle assessments

Steo 2 Small group pull out – students receive instruction in mainstream; as necessary, small groups of students are pulled out for additional assistance.

August – May 2010 - 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; Larilou Shaw, Sp. Ed. dept. chair

Sp. Ed. aides & teachers (local)

Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), CSAP, short cycle assessments

Major Improvement Goal #3: A positive climate and culture exists as evidenced by Positive Behavior Support system, implemented with fidelity, parent and community involvement and a sense of community as evidenced by (strategy): Strategy: : In every classroom, every day at West Middle School, a positive environment will be evidenced by (communication practices, environment building practices) a 5 to 1 ratio of positive interactions to every correction/redirection. Root Cause(s) Addressed: Lack of success in garnering parent involvement and support. Lack of true professional learning communities, where student achievement drives all decisions and a “culture of comfort” has existed instead of a culture of efficiency and effectiveness. (respect issues, cultural issues e.g. student and teacher relationships) Accountability Provisions or Grant Opportunities Addressed by this Major Improvement Strategy (check all that apply):


Description of Action Steps to Implement the Major Improvement Strategy Timeline Key Personnel

Resources

(Amount and Source: federal, state, and/or local)

Implementation Benchmarks

PBS: Ongoing data review with discussion and secondary supports. This will include both positive and negative data collected on the PBS program at West , specifically keeping data on the number of positive referrals students receive, incentives they receive, as well as the opposite data, i.e. when students are being corrected for inappropriate behaviors, etc.

August – May 2010 - 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; Stacy Piper, Counselor; Karen Newton, PBS chairperson, Tina Harrison, Parent Volunteer Coordinator;

PBIS committee, materials costs for producing pride cards, incentives.

PBIS Committee meetings, SAC meetings, Leadership team meetings


Nancy Cain, parent & SAC president; Karen Newton; Student Dean & PBS chairperson

Parent Involvement: PARENT INVOLVEMENT: All staff will maintain parent contact logs, on which are recorded phone calls to or from home, as well as documenting all in-person contact with parents/guardians. All SAC meetings are announced via automated phone call system, in addition to being posted on school marquee, and all parents who attend meeting in person are followed up with in person to make sure they are aware of and invited to the next SAC meeting.

September – May 2010 - 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; All teachers, counselors, administrators. Tina Harrison, Parent Volunteer Coordinator; Nancy Cain, parent & SAC president; Karen Newton; Student Dean & PBS chairperson

Teacher phone conference logs, District automated call system (local)

School Accountability Committee meetings, Student, Parent, Staff Climate Surveys

OTHER: Adhering to a measurable, instructional focus during PLC times.

August – May 2010 - 2011

Clay Gomez, Principal; Karen Newton, Student Dean/Math coach, Katie Flemate, Counselor-coordinator, all teachers

Bi-Weekly PLC meetings Staff Climate Surveys

Not on Improvement Accredited---ALERT Traditional Year 1 ... · CDE Improvement Planning Template...

Documents

Transcript of Not on Improvement Accredited---ALERT Traditional Year 1 ... · CDE Improvement Planning Template...