You are on page 1of 15

Puyallup School District 2010-2012 District Improvement Plan

Superintendent: District Improvement Leadership Team:


Tony Apostle Debra Aungst Jay Reifel Chrys Sweeting Lynne Rosellini Amy Eveskcige Casey Cox Nancy Arnold-Chair John Parker-Chair Vince Pecchia Andrew Schwebke Karen Mool Char Krause Lisa Russell-Nolan Brain Lowney Scott Brittain Mark Vetter Dana Harris Glenn Malone

Date: June 14, 2010


Deputy Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Exec Director Special Services Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Chief Academic Officer (CAO) Dir of Assess & Accountability Director of Special Programs Dir of Literacy & Social Studies Director of Math & Science Asst Dir of Special Education Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Conchita Oliver-Moore Rebecca Williams Dave Sunich Cari Ake Miles Erdly Christine Bloomfield Mary Smith Tania Simons Gentry Geise Mark Phillips Mindy Lyon Christine Holland Julie Curran Tara Geise Tabitha Jackson Karen McNamara Karin Catey Xuedong Chen Principal Principal Principal Assistant Principal Assistant Principal Indian Education Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Parent Parent Parent Parent Puyallup Education Association (PEA) President Recorder Parent

District Mission Statement:


Supported by families and our diverse community, the Puyallup School District challenges its students to achieve their academic, creative, and physical potential.

Our Vision
Students graduating from Puyallup School District will be: Proficient in reading, writing and mathematics and able to apply these skills across all curricular areas. Critical thinkers who are able to solve complex problems. Engaged, self-directed, lifelong learners. Effective listeners and communicators. Able to understand and respect diversity. Resilient, collaborative and persistent as they address challenges. Capable of efficient time management. Employable and capable of productive work. Caring, skilled family and community members. Able to value the arts as an essential part of their cultural understanding. Capable of making healthy life choices. Responsible, contributing citizens in a diverse changing world.

Our Beliefs
In partnership with our community, we: Value each student as a unique individual. Understand and respect the different ways and different rates that students learn. Ensure that all students have equitable opportunities to learn and achieve high standards. Encourage and expect students to achieve the highest learning standards. Regularly assess, evaluate and communicate to students and families all aspects of student learning. Expect parents to be active partners in the educational process. Incorporate diversity as integral in all district endeavors. Communicate openly with parents, students, staff and members of the community. Cultivate partnerships that support quality educational programs. Provide students and staff with a learning environment that supports physical, emotional, social and intellectual safety. Will be accountable to all stakeholders.

District Improvement Goals:


To improve Reading Achievement, the Puyallup School District will have the following goals: Increase our reading achievement scores at grades 3, 5, and 8 over the next three years cumulatively by 10%. To improve Mathematics Achievement, the Puyallup School District will have the following goal: Increase our math achievement scores at grades 4, 7, and 10 over the next three years cumulatively by 10%. To close the achievement gap through a systems of intervention The Puyallup School District will develop and initiate a district-wide framework for highly effective, research-based instruction and tiered intervention in math and reading by September 2010. In doing so, the following achievement gap goals will be addressed: 1. 2. 3. 4. Narrowing the achievement gap of seventh grade students in reading from 22.6 to 17% while maintaining district averages above the state average Narrowing the math achievement gap by half for all grades. Narrowing the achievement gap in math and reading for Hispanic, Native American, African American and low income elementary students. Increasing the number of high school students meeting the Developmentally Appropriate Proficiency Exam (DAPE) assessment from 65% to an 85% level or participating in the High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) or HSPE Basic.

District Profile (Description of Current Programs):


The Puyallup School District is the ninth largest district in the State of Washington, serving a population of approximately 100,000 residents. The district is located six miles east of Tacoma, 30 miles south of Seattle, and is situated in the heart of the Puyallup Valley. The district has 21 elementary schools, seven junior high schools, three comprehensive senior high schools, and an alternative school, all of which serve nearly 22,000 students. The district employs more than 1,200 certificated and about 1,100 classified staff. All students have access to district-adopted Reading, Mathematics, and Science curriculum. In elementary, reading curricula include Read Well and Open Court. For elementary math, field studies conducted during the 2009-2010 school year will provide administrators and district adoption committee with needed data to select an effective elementary mathematics programs which will be implemented during the 2010-2011 school year. Currently, every elementary student receives 60 minutes of math and 90 minutes of literacy daily. In secondary, language arts programs utilize the Glencoe and McDougal Littell curriculums; and math programs include the Connected Math Project (CMP) in grades 7-8, Prentice Halls Algebra, Geometry, and Algebra II for high school mathematics. Junior high course requirements and high school graduation requirements provide each student with the level of rigor necessary for students to perform at high levels. On-Time Graduation Specialists at each junior high and high school monitor student progress in all core classes and provide support to those students who are at risk of failing. Other K-9 academic intervention programs involve identifying struggling learners through diagnostic methods and targeting services to those students so they meet standard or are performing at grade level. Several reading interventions are available for teachers to use with their students and these include: Rewards, Reading Advantage, Soar, Reading for Meaning, Reading for Mastery, Corrective Reading, Read Naturally, Systematic Instruction in Phonemic Awareness Phonics and Sight words (SIPPS), and Six-Minute Solution. Assessments are utilized to determine elementary students reading fluency, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and comprehension. Federal funding from Title I and state funding from the Learning Assistance Program (LAP) supports struggling learners in grades Kindergarten through grade 12 who have either not met standard in both mathematics and reading at their grade level or who are at risk of failing. In mathematics, efforts are underway to improve achievement by strengthening teachers understanding of core mathematics concepts and identify core instructional practices every child should receive. New math curriculum adoptions for junior high students and high school students are still in their implementation phase with math intervention curricula being considered to target specific concepts students have not yet attained. Additional district programs are in place to support student learning and improve students achievement. These include the Special Education program, K-12 English Language Learners (ELL) program, Achievement Via Individual Determination (AVID). To address improvement efforts at the building level, each principal assembles a Comprehensive School Improvement Team to identify their students academic needs based on a variety of student data. The teams meet monthly and develop a Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP) addressing the needs of all learners.

NEEDS

District Needs Assessment


Annually, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) provides each district with a Washington State Report Card. The 2008-2009 report indicated a substantial number of students did not meet proficiency goals in mathematics on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) in 2008-2009 in each of the three grade spans causing the Puyallup School District to not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in mathematics. While the district met the requirements for AYP in reading, students in grades 3-5 from families with lower socio-economic status, special education students in grades 3-8, and Hispanic students in grades 3-5 did not. Given the strong correlation between high reading achievement and success on other state assessments, a need to address reading improvement will be addressed in this district improvement plan. The following additional data allowed District Improvement Committee members to identify the teaching and learning needs of its students, especially students of diverse backgrounds and low income students (this data will be included as an appendix item in the plan). 2009 WASL data and WASL Trends (summative assessment data collected annually in the spring) Disaggregated achievement data for low income students (From WASL data collected in the spring) WAAS Portfolio for some self-contained students (Alternative assessment for Special Education students in the Spring) Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELs)/Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) data (Progress monitoring data collected throughout 08-09 school year) DRP (Degrees of Reading Power) data (Collected annually during 08-09 school year) District Writing Assessment Data (Collected twice annually) Mobility data/Continuously enrolled (Collected in Fall of 2009 for District Improvement purposes) Attendance data (Collected monthly) Staff Survey Results (Collected annually to determine staff perceptions of improvement or how students needs are being met) District Disproportionality Data (Collected annually as a tool to close the achievement gap) Discipline Data (Collected annually and used to close the achievement gap)

Prior to the 2009-2010 school year, several recent Washington State legislative initiatives including a revision of the state mathematics standards, delay of the date students must pass the high school mathematics assessment, and the introduction of a K-12 recommended list of mathematics curricula have hindered the Puyallup School District from developing a comprehensive and coherent mathematics program district-wide. Major mathematics curriculum revisions at elementary are being studied for the 2010-11 school year while secondary math adoptions are still in their implementation phase. Since the adoptions are recent and a corresponding implementation dip in achievement is anticipated, many district schools have yet to benefit fully from a coherent mathematics program and, subsequently, have not made AYP in mathematics. Accompanying the connection of a strong mathematics curriculum to higher achievement, is an on-going effort to define core instructional practices in mathematics and reading and provide training to teachers and administrators to be highly effective in monitoring how those instructional practices translate to higher student achievement. Representing these practices and articulating action steps to implement their use is another key focus of the district improvement plan.

Comprehensive Analysis of Puyallup School District Data


To identify student needs based on district data, the district improvement committee formed four sub-committees: Reading, Mathematics, Achievement Gap, and Interventions. Members within each group were given the task of reviewing the following data in an effort to identify the strengths and areas of need within district programs. Following data analysis protocols within the Washington State approved School System Improvement Resource Guide, sub-committees were able to identify district needs in math and reading, address improvement by writing specific and measureable goals, and complete action planning steps that will be implemented no later than September of 2010.

DATA REVIEW

Demographic data The district improvement committee reviewed and analyzed the following demographic data School Enrollment Trends Free and Reduced Lunch rates Ethnicity, Gender, and Special Populations Attendance Mobility Drop out and Graduation Rates Language Proficiency Homeless Population

Student achievement data The district improvement committee reviewed and analyzed the following student achievement data: WASL DIBELS/ORF District Writing assessments, Degrees of Reading Power Classroom-based assessments

Perception data The district improvement committee reviewed and analyzed the following perception data: Teacher surveys Parent Brunch surveys Title I Parent surveys

Program/Context data The district improvement committee reviewed the following program data: Disproportionality Data Grants (Federal and State) Parent Attendance at District meetings and sponsored events Reading program Mathematics program Professional development Funding Sources

6
CONCLUSIONS What areas of strength were identified while reviewing your data? Achievement Data-Special Education; Decrease in writing gap from 64% to 9%. Decrease in reading gap from 50 to 48%. Achievement Data-Title I/LAP: Tenth grade scores in reading and writing are 10% higher than the state average. Achievement Data-Ethnic/Poverty: Tenth grade reading achievement gap decreased from 40% to 10% in a ten year period. Tenth grade math and science assessment scores are higher than the state average. Achievement Data: Students with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), in general, scored higher than state in 4th, 7th, & 10th grades in math; 7th & 10th in reading; and 4th grade in writing. Achievement Data: Grade 10 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students in Puyallup (54.5%) exceeded the percentage of LEP students meeting standard at the state level (36.8%) Staff Perception data: 92% of parents agree or strongly agree that school staff members are welcoming to parents and view them as educational partners Achievement Data: The math achievement gap for Native American students has decreased over the past decade. Achievement Data: Math scores at grades 4,7, and 10 have improved relative to the state averages since 2003-04 Staff Perception Data: 84% of our Title I / LAP staff agree or strongly agree that they are knowledgeable in curriculum and differentiated instruction. Staff Perception Data: 84% of Title I / LAP parents participate with teachers to develop academic goals each year. What areas of concern were identified? Reading Between the years of 03-04 to 08-09, there is an average of a 49.3% discrepancy between Basic Education (BE) students and Special Education students (SPED) students meeting standard in grade 4. Between the years of 03-04 to 08-09, there is an average of a 52% discrepancy between BE students and SPED students in grade 7. Between the years of 03-04 to 08-09, there is an average of a 43% discrepancy between BE and SPED students in grade 10. Math Coherence of math curriculum in grades 3-5 Lack of materials and professional development for Special Education teachers High failure rates in some high school math classes Disconnect between core curriculum and supplemental services (Title I, LAP, & Resource) Teachers knowledge level and comfort with mathematics Principals knowledge level and comfort with mathematics Systems of Intervention Collaboration time has been created to focus on improving instructions (35% disagree completely) Unexcused absence rates ranged from 0.1% to 15.69% among schools, in 08-09 with a district average at 0.6%. Almost all staff, 94% indicate classroom activities are culturally responsive to the diversity of students. 23% of staff disagree completely that the district implements system-wide supports to accelerate learning. About half (49%) of staff agree somewhat. High quality instruction is implemented in every classroom (39% disagree completely")

7
CONCLUSIONS (continued) What areas of concern were identified? Belief that all students can read strategically (41% somewhat agree and 27% disagree completely) Belief that all students can learn numeracy at high levels. (32% somewhat agree and 35% disagree completely) We have innovation throughout the district such as implementing Response to Intervention (RTI) at several schools. But we don't regularly take the next step to implement the most successful innovations district-wide. Achievement Gap-Title I and Learning Assistance Program (LAP). At the junior high level, 50% level 3 students dropped to level 2 (L2) or below. At the 7th grade level 20% who met standard with a level 4 (L4) score no longer met standard (L2 or below) in the next testing period. At the elementary level, 49.3% of the students dropped from level 3 (L3) to L2 or below. District Title I in 4th grade math and writing scored less than state from 2000-09. In general, Title I students in L2 and L3 dropped below the state average for students meeting standard. Junior High LAP students achieving a L1 increased in math for a span of two years, while, students representing L2 and L3 dropped Fewer grade 4 Title I students at targeted assistance schools scored at standard (37.8%) the state (65.1%) (27.6% difference) Achievement Gap-Special Education. Achievement gap in math stayed consistent over a five year period (no change). Over a three year period, special education reading has had a 9% decrease in scores. Fourth grade special education student achievement in WASL reading decreased by 9.4% from 2003 to 2009. Non-special education student percentages meeting standard increased by 2.2% in the same period.

Achievement Gap Seventh grade reading achievement gap narrowed from 20022005 but is now widening back to the 1998-1999 levels. African American student scores are declining while other demographic groups are increasing or staying stable. In 2008-2009, 80.2% of the white students met standards in fourth grade reading compared to 56% of the African Americans and 62% of the Hispanics. Gap continues for fourth grade reading with a difference of 82.5% district average compared to 62.9% of low income students.

Action Planning
Based on the needs assessment, review of the data, and prioritization by the District Improvement Committee, the Puyallup School District proposes the following action steps. READING Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 3. Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 5. Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 8. Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 10 Grades K 10 Students Incorporate best practices that are grounded in scientifically based research that will strengthen instruction and assessment in reading and writing. National Reading Panel Report (2000), Washington State K-12 Reading Model (2005), Honig, Diamond, and Gutlohn Teaching Reading Sourcebook (2008), Fielding, Kerr, Rosier Delivering on the Promise (2004), Using Response to Intervention (RTI) for Washingtons Students (2006), Alliance for Excellent Education-Reading Next (2004)

District Improvement Goals: Target Population(s): Learning Strategy: Rationale (or research support):

Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
1. Reading Leadership Continuation of Reading Cadre (K-6) * Continuation of Writing Committee (K-6) *

Resources
Time ~$12,000 Time ~$12,000 Time ~$15,000 Time

Specific Person(s) Responsible


Director of Literacy & teacher leaders Director of Literacy & teacher leaders Director of Literacy & Dept. Chairs Director of Literacy & teacher leaders; Principals with staff

Professional Development Needed


Bi-Monthly Meetings Bi-Monthly Meetings Monthly Meetings Review all Reading Curriculums, engagement strategies, and formative and summative assessments.

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Group discussion and production Group discussion and production Group Production Instructional learning walks and Evaluation, Assessment Report

Continuation of meeting with Teacher Leaders (6-10) * Provide core curriculum [Read Well (grades K-2), Open Court (3-6), Glencoe Literature (6-8), McDougall Littell (9-10)]; formative and summative assessments, professional development for all teachers. 2. Core Reading Program Continuation of adopting new instructional materials to replace Open Court (K-6) * Reading, Writing, and Math Focus (K-3) Update curriculum guide documents (K-12)

$1,134,000* Time Research Time

Director of Literacy, Director of Social Studies, building administrators, and teacher leaders Student Learning department; Principals with staff Director of Literacy & teacher leaders Director of Literacy & CORE trainer

Once new materials are adopted teachers will need to be trained. Content integration. None

Instructional learning walks and evaluation Instructional learning walks and CSIP Plans, Assessment Reports Completed curriculum guides

3. High Quality Reading Instruction Continuation of Consortium of Reading Excellence (CORE) Elementary Reading Academy for teachers and administrators (K6) * Integrate best practices in reading and assessment into each curriculum training (K-12)

~$38,000* Time

5 days of targeted PD

Instructional learning walks, Evaluations, Assessment Reports

Time

Director of Literacy & teacher leaders; Principals with staff

Connected with all PD offerings

Instructional learning walks, Evaluations

Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
4. Reading Assessment System DIBELS Data System for all elementary schools. Assess all K-3 students, grades 4-6 not meeting standard, and provide Progress Monitoring for Tier II and III students in grades 7-10. Administer a beginning and end of the year assessment to all K-6 students and an alternate assessment to all 7-10 students. 5. Tier II and Tier III Reading Intervention Continue implementation of common reading interventions (K-8) * Define Core instructional strategies and practices for all students

9
Resources Specific Person(s) Responsible
Director of Literacy & building administrators

Professional Development Needed


Software navigation and progress monitoring training for elementary and secondary teachers. Assessment administration and analysis for building administrators and teachers.

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Assessment Reports

~$148,000

~$20,000 Identify a common assessment; Time Time ~$73,000* RTI Conf/Wksp; Coordination with Reading/Math Goals ~$30,000 Time

Director of Literacy & Director of Assessment

Assessment Reports

Director of Literacy, Principals, teachers, and Para educators District Intervention Team, Directors of Literacy and Math, Chief Academic Officers, Principals with staff Director of Literacy Assistant Superintendent of Student Learning Student Learning Directors; Director of Career Readiness; Director of Health and Fitness Same personnel listed above Directors Principals with staff Directors, CAO, and Assessment

Ongoing Professional Development for teachers and Para educators new to elementary and secondary. RTI Workshop and Best Practices in Reading and Math

Instructional learning walks, Teacher Evaluations, and Assessment Reports Core instruction model developed in Math and Reading

Adopt common reading interventions (10-12) Review Special education service model through the process of inquiry (K-12)

Training on intervention To be determined based results of inquiry

Set of adopted reading interventions Completed review and report to Student Learning department

6. Achievement Gap Review first instruction curriculum to ensure that it is sequential and transitions from level to level Research and develop achievement gap closing "look for" tool. Implement a monthly reading assessment that includes benchmark for each trimester for grades 2 through 6. Align classroom instruction and assessment to state standards using grade level extensions and materials. District and outside assessments Time Time Staff Funds Time/ Resources Collaboration between Directors Assessment reports

Collaboration between Directors Train entire staff working grades 26 Awareness of Alignment. Instructional PD on Learning Targets and Expectations. GLAD training of staff

Intervention menu Charting / Progressive monitoring tool developed Instructional learning walks and Evaluation

* Currently a district initiative in progress or previously planned

10
MATH Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 4. Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 7. Increase our achievement scores over the next three years cumulatively by 10% at grade 10. Students in grades K-10 Implement the Mathematics Systems Improvement Framework developed by OSPI over the three year recommended period. Key steps are listed in the action plan. See full document for comprehensive steps Boaler- Whats Math Got to Do With It (2009), National Math Panel Report (2008), Kilpatrick et.al.- Adding It Up (2001), Ladson-Billings- Achievement of African-American Students in Math, Slavin & Lake (2009), Response to Intervention Guide K-8 (2009)

District Improvement Goal: Target Population(s): Learning Strategy: Rationale (or research support):

Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
1. Mathematics Leadership Re-establish math cadre to focus on core instruction and assessment Provide training to all building administrators on research-based math instruction and classroom look-fors Expand secondary math leadership beyond teacher leaders Create and sustain structures to promote professional collaboration at all levels of the system 2. Core Mathematics Program Implement new core math program in grades 3-5 Implement adopted math high school program

Resources

Specific Person(s) Responsible


Director of MS CAO & Director of Math and Science (MS) Director of MS Director of MS, Teacher Leaders

Professional Development Needed


Monthly meetings 3 days over the 2010-11 school year with Teacher Development Group Monthly meetings Quarterly Meetings

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Feedback forms, group production Feedback forms, evidence of learning walks Feedback forms, group production Feedback forms, group production

$25,000 3 days of admin time, $10,000 $20,000 $30,000

Continue to refine use of middle level program to address alignment of Connected Math Project (CMP) to MSP and math standards Update curriculum guide documents

Materials $350,000$400,000 PD $180,000 Materials$260,000 Professional Development $75,000 $5,000

Director of MS Principals with staff Director of MS Principals with staff

Initial use training, on-going just in time training 5-day best practices tied to materials with Teacher Development Group Quarterly collaboration

Common assessments, learning walks, state assessment data Common assessments, learning walks, state assessment data

$5,000

Director of MS, Teacher Leaders Principals with staff Director of MS, Teacher Leaders Director of MS Principals Principals with staff, CAO, Directors, teacher leaders Director of MS, Principals with staff

Common assessments, learning walks, state assessment data Common assessments, learning walks, state assessment data Classroom observations Revised policies Evaluations, participant reflections

Quarterly collaboration

3. High Quality Math Instruction Identify and establish demonstration classrooms in mathematics Examine the adoption of common homework and assessment policies Integrate best practices into each curriculum training

$15,000 Sponsorship

Making best practices transparent Standards-based assessment practices Connected with all PD offerings

11
Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
Continue to offer Developing Math Ideas (DMI) courses for staff and administration Promote specialization in grades 5 & 6

Resources
$50,000 $0-25,000 depending on level of extra training $40,000

Specific Person(s) Responsible


Director of MS, Teacher Leaders CAO, Director of MS, Principals Director of MS

Professional Development Needed


6 sessions/ year Offer extended training opportunities for specialists 5 days of customized PD

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Evaluations, participant reflections Common assessments, learning walks, state assessment data Learning walks, state assessment data

Develop elementary resource math academy 4. Mathematics Assessment System Refine and implement common assessments K-6 in math Field test the use of Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) testing in Junior High for intervention support Revise common (CMP) junior high assessments to include pre/post assessments aligned to current standards Develop math screener(s) for grades 7-9 Develop common high school assessments by course 5. Tier II and Tier III Mathematics Intervention 12 Select and identify Tier III interventions K-12 Provide buildings with a consistent model for staffing to run interventions Define Core instructional strategies and practices for all students Special education service review through the process of inquiry (K-12) Select and identify Tier II interventions K-

$20,000 $10,000

Director of MS Director of MS & Director of assessment Director of MS & teacher leaders Director of MS & teacher leaders Director of MS & teacher leaders Director of MS and Special Services, Teacher leaders; Principals with staff Director of MS; Principals Director of MS Director of Special Programs Principals Intervention Team, Directors of Literacy and Math, CAO Training teachers to administer the assessments. use the data Assessments administered and data used to inform instruction

$5,000

$10,000 $10,000

$300,000$500,000

Specific training in each selected intervention

Performance data

RTI Conference Workshop; Time

RTI Workshop and Best Practices in Reading and Math

Core instruction model developed in Math and Reading

Assistant Superintendent of Student Learning; Director MS

To be determined based results of inquiry

Completed review and report to Student Learning department

6. Achievement Gap Implement a monthly math assessment that includes benchmark for each trimester for grades 2 through 6.

Time Staff Funds

Directors Principals with staff

Train entire staff working grades 2 6

Charting /Monitoring student progress through district data management system or eSchool plus

12
Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
Review first instruction curriculum to ensure that it is sequential and transitions from level to level

Resources

Specific Person(s) Responsible


Student Learning Directors

Professional Development Needed


Collaboration between Directors

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Assessment Report

District and outside assessments Time OSPI guidance for District Parent Involvement Policies ~$800 Time / Resources Staffing

Research and develop achievement gap closing "look for" tool. Review and Update of District Parent Involvement Policy to ensure coordination with District Improvement Initiatives

(same as above) Director of Special Programs; Title and LAP staff committee

Collaboration between Directors Title I meeting

Intervention menu Posting of new District Parent Policy on Website

Align classroom instruction and assessment to state standards using grade level extensions and materials. Include Applied Mathematics course to high school curriculum

Directors CAO Assessment Directors Principals Student Learning Directors;

Awareness of Alignment. Instructional PD on Learning Targets and Expectations. Train Instructional Staff on applied Math Curriculum

Instructional learning walks and evaluation Assessment of Students using formative and summative assessment Audit Report

Review first instruction curriculum to ensure that it is sequential and transitions from level to level

Audit

Collaboration between Directors

* Currently a district initiative in progress or previously planned CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP THROUGH A SYSTEMS OF INTERVENTION The Puyallup School District will develop and start implementation of a district-wide framework for highly effective, research-based instruction and tiered intervention in reading and math by September 2010. In doing so, the following achievement gap goals will be addressed: District Improvement Goals: Narrowing the achievement gap of seventh grade students in reading from 22.6% to 17% while maintaining district averages above the state average Narrowing the math achievement gap by 50% in all grades. Narrowing the achievement gap in reading and mathfor Hispanic, Native American, African American and low income elementary students. Increasing the number of high school students meeting the Developmentally Appropriate Proficiency Exam (DAPE) from 65% to an 85% level or participating on the HSPE or HSPE Basic assessment.

13
Target Population(s): Learning Strategy: Rationale (or research support): All learners would be impacted by a district-wide adoption of Response to Intervention at the foundational levels. Specifically, the systems of intervention would target our at-risk populations including students of special needs, students of poverty, and students from ethnically diverse backgrounds. Develop and disseminate a research-based framework for instruction and intervention utilizing formative and summative assessment data Response to Intervention Research; Dylan Williams Formative Assessment research (inside the Black Box); Instructional RoundsElmore

Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
Create a Tiered-approach to intervention consistent with district strategic directions and beliefs

Resources
Funding included in math interventions Facilitators

Specific Person(s) Responsible


RTI Team from District Improvement Committee; Principals CAO ODA Director of Assessment and Accountability; Director of Special Programs Principals

Professional Development Needed


Presentation RTI; Construction of Model, Ongoing Professional Development; June 18 RTI Workshop Social Justice training, intervention strategies, and relationship building. Included with RTI training

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Tiered intervention model implemented in each school

Determine essential student performance data that will inform a system of intervention

Train principals and teachers to analyze student data to inform instruction Develop a data framework for showing student growth and rate of learning

Director of Assessment and Accountability; Director of Special Programs Principals Title I District PD Funds; Information Technology Assessment, Title I, LAP, General Ed budgets Chief Academic Officers; Directors of Student Learning Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) online test; ($6 per student)

Frequency of use of student data systems by principals, teachers, and intervention specialists

Director of Assessment, Director of IT-Student Learning; Director of Special Programs Director of Assessment Principals

Elementary and Secondary Leadership Training at Puyallup Elementary Principal/Secondary Principal Meetings To be determined (TBD) based on intervention model developed

Use of data tool by 90% of principals for screening and intervention purposes Completed Framework

Develop set of principal look-fors: formative assessment in classroom

Directors of Student Learning; Principals

Possibly Instructional Rounds training

Completed set of look-for documents; Record of use and analysis of results Northwest Education Association (NWEA) MAP software

Find screening assessment in math and reading

Director of Assessment

Training for teachers on how to administer screening assessment

14
Action Plans
(Ranked in order of increasing priority; items in italics have highest budgetary priority)
Develop Framework for differentiating district resources to meet intervention at our schools of highest need Develop an extended learning program targeting specific intervention of students in grade 8, 10, and 12. Construct an Early Learning model districtwide that supports school readiness for Kindergarten that includes and involves parents, students, and early learning providers*

Resources
Meeting Times (included in costs above) Basic Education & LAP budget (~$50,000) Pierce County Linkages Team, READY; K-20 Task Force

Specific Person(s) Responsible


Chief Academic Officers, Executive Directors, Directors of Student Learning Principals Director of Special Programs; CAO, Principals Early Learning Committee

Professional Development Needed


None

Evaluation Strategies and/or Tools


Creation and implementation of framework in use by the 2011-12 school year Attendance records, student survey results, data of credits retrieved by students Completion of model for Kindergarten readiness

Odyssey Ware Online Credit Retrieval Attendance at regional Early Learning workshops and conferences

Invite parents to improvement planning meetings when frameworks and look-for tools are developed

Meeting dates and times

Director of Special Programs

TBD if necessary

Parent attendance at meetings

Provide Instructional Material in Native Language (Grade 7) Continue development of Parent Outreach Programs through the Office of Diversity Affairs *

~$5,000

CAO and ODA CAO Office of Diversity Affairs (ODA)

~$1,000

Knowledge of languages spoken in the homes and availability of materials. Information about Outreach Opportunities to Principals and Instructional Staff

Assessment of usage

Parent / community survey and participation rate

* Currently a district initiative in progress or previously planned

District Improvement Plan Guiding Document

The purpose of the District Improvement Plan is to: - Improve student achievement throughout the district. The plan overall must identify actions that, if implemented, have the greatest likelihood of accomplishing this goal. - Address the challenges in the district that prevent students in its schools from achieving proficiency in the core academic subjects of reading and mathematics. The improvement plan must analyze and address district challenges as they relate to leadership for schools, governance and fiscal infrastructures, and curriculum and instruction. - Specify the fiscal responsibilities of the district to carry out the district improvement plan. Specifically, the plan must: 1 Address the fundamental teaching and learning needs of schools in our district, especially the academic problems of low-achieving students Define specific measurable achievement goals and targets for each of the student subgroups whose disaggregated results are included in the States definition of AYP Incorporate strategies grounded in scientifically based research that will strengthen instruction in core academic subjects Include, as appropriate, student learning activities before school, after school, during the summer, and during any extension of the school year 1 Provide for high-quality professional development for instructional staff that focuses primarily on improved instruction Include strategies to promote effective parental involvement in the schools served by the district Include a determination of why the district previous plan was not comprehensive enough to reduce the number of schools not meeting adequate yearly progress.

You might also like