Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
NEEDS
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.
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
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)
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
Time
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
~$148,000
~$20,000 Identify a common assessment; Time Time ~$73,000* RTI Conf/Wksp; Coordination with Reading/Math Goals ~$30,000 Time
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)
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
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
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
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
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
Performance data
6. Achievement Gap Implement a monthly math assessment that includes benchmark for each trimester for grades 2 through 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
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
Align classroom instruction and assessment to state standards using grade level extensions and materials. Include Applied Mathematics course to high school curriculum
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
* 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
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
Completed set of look-for documents; Record of use and analysis of results Northwest Education Association (NWEA) MAP software
Director of 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
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
TBD if necessary
Provide Instructional Material in Native Language (Grade 7) Continue development of Parent Outreach Programs through the Office of Diversity Affairs *
~$5,000
~$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
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.